Summary of Judicial Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Petitioner is a national of the Country of Origin who entered the State on 1 February 2022 on a student visa valid until 6 September 2023. A condition of that leave was not to work more than 20 hours per week during term time. On 22 February 2022 the Petitioner entered into a contract of employment as a support worker, contracted to work 20 hours per week, with timesheets to record hours and reimbursement for travel between clients. The contract stated pay was for "the actual hours worked attending to service users" and travel costs would be reimbursed.

On 2 September 2022 the Petitioner applied for priority work leave to remain as a skilled worker and stated in that application that he had not breached the conditions of his student visa. The Respondent granted leave on 7 September 2022.

The Respondent subsequently interviewed the Petitioner on 19 October 2022 and decided to cancel his leave. That decision and several later cancellation decisions were withdrawn by the Respondent. The Respondent made a further decision dated 6 May 2025 cancelling the Petitioner’s leave on the basis that he had worked over the permitted hours and had made false representations and used deception to obtain leave. The Petitioner sought judicial review of the 6 May 2025 decision.

In the judicial review, the Petitioner accepted that his recorded hours exceeded 20 hours per week if travel time between clients was counted as "employment" under the Immigration Rules, but contended that when he completed his application he did not understand unpaid travel time to count as work and that the false statement was an innocent mistake rather than deliberate deception. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner’s representations were dishonest and that the decision maker had followed her published guidance and provided adequate reasons.

Judge Drummond concluded that the Respondent failed to follow the published guidance on false representations and deception and failed to provide adequate reasons addressing the central question whether the Petitioner’s false representation was an innocent mistake or dishonest. The 6 May 2025 decision was reduced and expenses were awarded against the Respondent.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent followed the published policy guidance on cancellation of leave on grounds of deception when cancelling the Petitioner’s leave to remain.
2. Whether the Respondent gave adequate reasons for cancelling the Petitioner’s leave to remain, in particular whether the decision addressed and justified a conclusion of dishonesty rather than innocent mistake.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The Petitioner accepted that, by reference to the Immigration Rules definition of "employment" (which includes paid and unpaid employment), his timesheets showed more than 20 hours per week if travel time is included, but he did not understand at the time of application that unpaid travel time counted as work.
• The false statement on the 2 September 2022 application was an innocent mistake caused by misunderstanding the definition of work, not a deliberate misrepresentation.
• The Respondent failed to apply the deception guidance (dated 14 November 2023), in particular the requirement to consider whether an innocent mistake could have been made and to ask specified questions (e.g. how easy would it be to make the mistake; how likely was the applicant to be unaware the information was incorrect).
• The Respondent’s reasons are inadequate because they do not explain why the Petitioner’s account of his belief was rejected or why an inference of dishonesty was drawn.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The Respondent accepted the applicable legal approach to dishonesty as set out in the authority referred to in the opinion and accepted the need for procedural fairness; the Petitioner was afforded an interview and opportunity to explain his position.
• The decision maker relied on the consistency and number of breaches, the timesheets and rotas (including travel time), the Petitioner’s answers at interview and evidence from employers to infer dishonesty.
• The Respondent submitted that the decision was open to her on the material available and that an informed reader would understand from the decision letter that the guidance had been applied implicitly; the decision letter need not set out every detailed point.
• The Respondent relied on authorities establishing that, where an explanation is sought and is unconvincing, an inference of dishonesty may legitimately be drawn.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Drummond set out the applicable policy guidance ("Suitability: false representations, deception, false documents, nondisclosure of relevant fact", dated 14 November 2023) which required decision makers to consider whether a false representation might be an innocent mistake and to pose specific questions (e.g. how easy would it be to make the mistake; how likely was the applicant to be unaware the information was incorrect; whether the false information benefited the applicant; whether the same mistake occurred on earlier applications).

The court explained the relevant legal framework for assessing dishonesty: following the approach in the principal authorities, a fact-finder must first ascertain the individual's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts and whether that belief is genuinely held, and only then apply an objective standard to determine whether the conduct was dishonest. The court relied on the interpretation of that approach in subsequent authority which emphasises that the fact-finder must include everything relevant to whether the individual acted dishonestly, including the reasons for the individual's conduct.

Applying those principles to the 6 May 2025 decision, the court found that the decision letter did not ask the required questions and contained no assessment of the Petitioner’s state of mind at the time the false representation was made. The decision relied on the "consistency of the breaches and the number of hours" and on the Respondent's view that timesheets and rotas (including travel time) showed breaches, but it did not address whether the Petitioner genuinely believed he was compliant or how easy it would have been to make the asserted mistake.

The court examined the Respondent's reliance on interview answers and asserted inconsistencies. It found that the decision letter did not identify any specific inconsistencies or explain why the Petitioner’s account was irrational; it did not explain why facts such as travelling in a work vehicle and not deviating from a route made the Petitioner’s misunderstanding irrational. The court concluded that the critical issue (dishonesty versus innocent mistake) was not addressed and that the Respondent had not applied the guidance's required enquiry into the Petitioner’s knowledge and belief.

Judge Drummond emphasised that a finding of deception is a serious allegation and that authorities require a decision maker to address whether discrepancies indicate inadvertence or deliberate wrongdoing. The absence of such an assessment left the informed reader in real and substantial doubt about the reasons for the decision. The court therefore concluded that the Respondent had failed both to follow the deception guidance and to provide adequate reasons.

Holding and Implications

The Respondent's decision dated 6 May 2025 is reduced.

Consequence for the parties: the court sustained the Petitioner’s relevant plea-in-law, repelled the Respondent’s pleas-in-law and awarded expenses against the Respondent. The immediate legal effect stated by the court is that the 6 May 2025 decision is reduced. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent; it addresses the application of existing guidance and authorities to the facts of this case and identifies a failure by the decision maker to engage with the critical issue of the applicant’s state of mind when assessing alleged deception.