Gurung) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2013] 1 WLR 2546; [2013] Imm AR 651; [2013] EWCA Civ 8 at, for example, [16]. 57. Ms Harrison seeks to distinguish Rostami on the basis that it concerned paragraph 360 and following of the Immigration Rules, rather than the exercise of discretion outside the rules pursuant to policy. Wherever the Immigration Rules provide for a strict approach, it is nevertheless necessary to entertain the possibility of an exercise of discretion outside the rules, she submits. It is trite law that a policy cannot be a blanket policy admitting of no exceptions, and to the extent that the Work Policy may be so described, it is unlawful. Ms Harrison relies on the opinion of Lord Dyson JSC in
- JUDGMENT
- Permission to work and volunteering for asylum seekers
- Upper Tribunal Judge Stephen Smith:
- IJ (Kosovo)
- British Oxygen Co. Ltd v Minister of Technology
- Therefore, your client does not qualify for permission to work in the UK.
- RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY
- Rostami
- Gurung) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- R (oao) Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others
- not normally
- and it is not possible to exercise discretion in their favour
- other – give detail
- must be restricted to jobs on the Shortage Occupation List
- unless it is appropriate to make an exemption
- subject to exceptions
- from which exceptions may be made
- which may be departed from in an exceptional case
- from which the decision-maker may exceptionally
- the decision maker having the power to depart from a policy in an exceptional case
- Gurung
- not normally qualify
- Exceptional circumstances may be considered on a case by case basis. For more information on the exceptional circumstances in which discretion may be exercised see [para] 13.2
- Budd
- Negassi
- Sidabras
- R (oao Countryside Alliance and others and others) v Her Majesty's Attorney General and another
- Tekle
- SUMMARY OF DECISION