Evidential flexibility policy and Immigration Solicitors
The Supreme Court has given judgment in the case of Mandala v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59 about the interpretation and application of the Home Office’s Points Based System evidential flexibility policy. This is landmark case for immigration solicitors. For some reason the Supreme Court considered that the policy was withdrawn for applications made on or after 6 September 2012 but in fact it is still very much alive and present on the gov.uk website (last updated August 2014). The system in unflattering terms: “a system that is dementedly complex, which transcends mortal comprehension and yet which also allows for subjective and arbitrary decision making”.
* Home Office must produce relevant policies in court
Mr Mandala had applied under this arcane system for permission to study. He was required by the rules and the application form to show a certain amount of money in his bank account. The rules went on to say that the money had to be held for a continuous period of 28 days but the application form was silent on this point. Nevertheless, Mr Mandala submitted statements showing he had considerably in excess of the required amount. However, he missed out some pages from the necessary series of bank statements. You can find us at Google by searching Immigration Solicitors Near Me.
* Evidential flexibility policy obliges flexible approach
The Supreme Court sticks to the terms of the evidential policy itself. The Secretary of State argued, relying of comments by Davis LJ in the Court of Appeal and Foskett J in the case of Gu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1634 (Admin), that Mr Mandalia’s case was not a “missing sequence” case because the missing bank statements all fell at one end of the necessary time period. Lord Wilson refers to the judges as “highly respected” before dismissing this point, and doing so with prejudice so to speak.