Sponsor licence revocation overturned

In recent months the High Court has made a few judgements that have been helpful to migrants, and a consistent theme has emerged. When the Home Office makes a decision the law requires that the decision must be made lawfully and correctly. As we have seen in recent cases reported on this blog, this is not quite the same thing as saying that the decision must be correct. It may be the case that the decision is clearly wrong but, whether it is or not, if the decision-making process is wrong that is enough in itself for the decision to be impugned.

We are talking here about Judicial Review, which is a process where a court such as the High Court reviews certain types of decision made by state bodies such as the Home Office and decides whether they were lawful. If the court decides a decision was not lawful it can quash (ie cancel) the decision. 

This is what happened in the recent case of “TJ Trading Express Ltd”. This is a firm that ran a petrol station and shop somewhere near Hull in Northern England. It held a Skilled Worker Sponsor Licence and it employed Skilled Workers on that basis. 

The Director, Mr Ragunathan, who was also a SMS Level 1 User, issued a certificate of sponsorship in order to employ a Mr Sivalingam as a petrol station manager. But Mr Sivalingam is his brother-in-law, and this was not disclosed to the Home Office, and this was against the rules, and the Home Office (who keep records) found out. In a case like this involving the appointment of a close family member the Home Office takes the view that the appointment is likely not to be honest or genuine.

Not for the first time we perceive that Home Office record-keeping is very efficient and we also perceive that they are very ruthless, and they revoked the sponsor licence on this basis. There is no right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal in this sort of situation and so the matter went to Judicial Review at the High Court.

Mr Raganathan accepted that he had made an error but he said that it was inadvertent. He also said that there had been a proper recruitment process and that the appointment of Mr Sivalingam had been genuine. He also complained that he had not been given the chance to make representations before the sponsor licence was revoked. 

The court was evidently amenable to this latter argument, which it considered weighty, and it was also generally critical of the “scant reasoning” of the revocation decision. To put it short, it said that the Home Office’s decision-making had been inadequate. The theme that fairness requires that those who have been accused of dishonesty or poor behaviour should be given the chance to justify themselves often comes up in cases of this kind. 

So TJ Trading Express was successful before the court and the revocation decision was quashed. 

Sponsor licence revocation can be a difficult and painful experience but sometimes there may be light at the end of the tunnel. If you are involved in any such matters we at GSN Immigration will do our best to advise you on the best way forward. 

Oliver Westmoreland

Senior Immigration Lawyer