![[2025] UKUT 00229 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
Application for Judicial Review
Application for Judicial Review
Pre-action communications proved unfruitful and this claim was issued on 12 September 2024. Mr Malik KC advanced three concise grounds:
The ECO misconstrued Paragraph AR3.3 of the Immigration Rules in declining to consider the IELTS for UKVI certificate submitted with the application for administrative review.
The ECO failed to follow the Evidential Flexibility policy in refusing to invite the Applicant to provide the missing IELTS for UKVI certificate when refusing his underlying application.
The ECO acted unlawfully in failing to consider departing from the Immigration Rules in the exercise of her residual discretion.
Permission was granted on the papers by UTJ Hirst, who considered each of the grounds to be arguable.
- Heading
- Judge Blundell
- Background
- The Entry Clearance Officer’s Decision
- The Administrative Review Decision
- Application for Judicial Review
- Submissions
- The Immigration Rules
- Appendix SW
- Appendix English Language
- Paragraph 245AA
- Appendix Administrative Review
- The Evidential Flexibility Policy
- Analysis
- Ground Two – Evidential Flexibility
- Mudiyanselage & Ors v SSHD
- Alignment of Paragraph 245AA and version 11 of the Evidential Flexibility policy
- Differences Between v8 and v11 of the Evidential Flexibility Policy
- No Points Based System Context
- Ground Three – Discretion Outside the Rules
- Ground One – Submission of Additional Evidence on Administrative Review
- The Obvious Drafting Error in AR3.3(d) and (e)
- The Admission of Further Evidence Under Paragraph AR3.3(d)
- The Admission of Further Evidence Under Paragraph AR3.3(e)
- Conclusions