The High Court has quashed visa appeal decisions involving a Pakistani man, his wife and their two children after finding that the man’s appeal was assessed on the basis of errors and an unclear concern about possible travel to the UK.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said Muhammad Bilal Ashraf had obtained a critical skills employment permit and that his family’s applications for long-stay visas were refused. Their appeals were also unsuccessful. The family sought, among other relief, orders quashing the appeal decisions.
The judgment said the decision on Mr Ashraf’s appeal stated that he had not supplied a detailed six-month bank statement. The court said that was incorrect. It also said the decision found he had supplied no evidence of experience in similar work, although a copy of his employment permit had been provided. The judgment noted that the permit required the holder to possess the experience needed for the employment.
A further reason said Mr Ashraf “may branch into the…UK”. The judge said that, assuming this meant he might seek to enter the UK, the reason’s meaning in the context of his application could not be accurately determined.
The judge concluded that the first two points showed the Minister for Justice and Equality had not considered all the evidence, or had not understood some of it for what it was. He said appeals must be assessed on all properly submitted evidence, understood in context, and granted certiorari in respect of Mr Ashraf’s appeal decision.
The court also quashed the appeal decision concerning Sobia Saleem. One stated reason for refusing her appeal was that Mr Ashraf’s application had failed. The judge said the deficiencies in the decision on Mr Ashraf’s appeal meant certiorari should follow for Ms Saleem too. The children’s appeals had failed because their parents’ appeals failed, and the court quashed those decisions as well.
The judgment rejected the argument that the family could make fresh applications as an alternative remedy. It described judicial relief as a last resort within an administrative process and found that principle applied in this case.
The ruling quashed the appeal decisions. The judgment does not state that visas were granted or determine the outcome of any fresh applications.