[2025] UKUT 00229 (IAC)

The proper approach to considering the meaning of the Immigration Rules and the respondent’s published policies is settled and it is not necessary to make extensive reference to authority.

In relation to the Rules, the decision of the Supreme Court in R (Wang) v SSHD recalled Lord Brown’s judgment in Mahad v ECO, including his injunction to construe the Rules “sensibly according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, recognising that they are statements of the Secretary of State’s administrative policy.”

In relation to published policies, the locus classicus remains what was said by Lord Reed in Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; [2012] PTSR 983, at [18] in particular: “policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context.” I have also been assisted by, but need not rehearse, the recent and comprehensive review of the relevant principles in R (Gurung) v SSHD (ACRS meaning - policy interpretation principles) [2025] UKUT 90 (IAC).

I will consider the grounds in what I consider to be the most logical order. That order is chronological, beginning with the respondent’s approach to the Evidential Flexibility policy in the original decision (ground two) and the failure to consider the case outside the Immigration Rules (ground three), then moving on to consider the challenge made to the refusal to consider additional evidence in the Administrative Review (ground one).