[2025] UKUT 00091 (IAC)

One facet of the second issue is whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to cite and rely upon the substantive requirements of other provisions of the rules in Appendix ROB without expressly relying on the specific provisions of the rules in question.

I agree with Mr Yarrow’s submission that there is no public law requirement to cite the specific provision in question. What matters is that the substance of the provision is applied accurately and that the decision itself discloses sufficient reasons for the conclusions reached. What is sufficient is a fact-specific question, but in my judgment the reasons given by both decisions and challenge were sufficient.

The Secretary of State relied upon the substantive requirements contained in Appendix ROB, in particular para. 5.1, concerning the genuineness of the applicant’s purported representation of the overseas business. Insofar as neither decision expressly mentioned para. 5.1, no error arises on that account, since the reference in the 23 April 2023 decision to the business not being genuine was plainly a reference to the requirements established by para. 5.1. There was no requirement expressly to cite paras 5.1 or 5.2 in circumstances where, as here, the substantive requirements of those provisions were clearly applied and referred to by the Secretary of State. It is clear from the Secretary of State’s analysis which provisions of appendix ROB the decision relied upon, since the term “genuine” is clear from both the decisions under challenge and the substantive requirements of the rules. No procedural unfairness or other unlawfulness arose on that account.

Similarly, the Secretary of State’s concerns that the company had been created to facilitate entry clearance into the United Kingdom were plainly a reference to para. 5.2 of Appendix ROB.

The same analysis applies by analogy to the AR decision’s conclusion that the first applicant was not supervising Serena Euro. While that decision did not cite ROB 4.4(b) in reaching that conclusion, it is clear that the reference to a requirement

Alternatively, even if the Secretary of State had been subject to a requirement expressly to cite paras 4.4(b), 5.1, and 5.2 when referring to their substantive requirements, had she done so the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different.