IMMIGRATION — Appeal — Leave to enter or remain — Claimant

wrongly stating on application form that he had no criminal

convictions — Secretary of State refusing application on ground
false representations made — Whether claimant’s state of mind
relevant — Whether refusal of leave mandatory in absence of
dishonesty — Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (1994)
(HC 395), paras 320(7A)(7B), 322(1A)

Adedoyin v Secretary of State for the Home

Department [2010] EWCA Civ 773;
[2010] WLR (D) 172

CA: Rix, Longmore, Jacob LJJ: 6 July 2010

Dishonesty or deception was required to render a false

representation a ground for mandatory refusal of an
application for extension of leave to remain. The term
“false representations” in paras 320(7A)(7B) and 322(1A)
of the Immigration Rules should be read as meaning
“dishonest representations”, though the dishonesty need
not be that of the claimant himself.

The Court of Appeal so held allowing an appeal under s

103C of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
by the claimant, Adekele Adedoyin, from a decision of
Senior Immigration Judge Taylor in the Asylum and
Immigration Tribunal on 1 October 2009 dismissing his
appeal from a decision of Immigration Judge Courtney on
29 April 2009 upholding a decision dated 6 March 2009
refusing his application for further leave to remain on the
grounds that in his application he had failed to declare a
criminal conviction.

RIX LJ said the claimant, a Nigerian citizen who

arrived in the United Kingdom as a student in 1999, had
received numerous extensions of leave to remain
culminating in an extension until 31 January 2009.
Having graduated with first-class honours and acquired a
higher degree, he met all the requirements of the points-
based system and applied within time for a further
extension, stating that he had no criminal convictions. In
fact he had three convictions for driving without a licence
or insurance. The UK Border Agency informed the
claimant on 6 March 2009 that his application had been
refused under para 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules,
with the consequence that he must leave the UK and
would be barred for a period of between one and ten years
from applying for entry clearance or leave to enter. The
relevant rule stated that leave to remain was to be refused
“where false representations have been made or false
documents or information have been submitted (whether
or not material to the application, and whether or not to
the claimant’s knowledge), or material facts have not been
disclosed, in relation to the application”. The minister had
given an assurance in Parliament that the paragraph was
not intended to catch those who made innocent mistakes
in their applications. The Home Department had further
stated that the rules were only intended to cover people
who told lies. His Lordship disapproved of a dictum of
Staughton LJ in Tahzeem Akhtar v Immigration Appeal
Tribunal [1991] Imm AR 326, 332 that to constitute false
representation under the rule the representation need not
have been fraudulent. The claimant’s case should be
referred to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for it to
consider whether his answer “no” to the question about
convictions was or was not dishonest.

LONGMORE LJ gave a concurring judgment and

JACOB LJ agreed.

Appearances: Zane Malik (instructed by Malik Law) for

the claimant; Ben Collins (instructed by Treasury
Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.

Reported by: John Spencer, Barrister.

© 2011. The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales.