Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Pankina

The three-month funds requirement was not part of the immigration rules laid before Parliament and could not lawfully be imposed via policy guidance. Only requirements subject to parliamentary scrutiny and certainty can have quasi-legal status. Applicants who had £800 at the time of application satisfied the lawful rule. The Home Secretary must operate the rules in conformity with s.6 of the Human Rights Act, and Article 8 ECHR may require independent consideration where the rules do not provide for it.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: The Secretary of State for the Home Department; Respondent/appellant: Anastasia Pankina; Appellant: Margaret Malekia; Appellant: Aves Ahmed; Appellant: Mohamed Junaideen; Appellant: Irfan Ali; Appellant: Navindra Sankar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (immigration) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal by Home Secretary dismissed in Pankina; appeals by other applicants (except Malekia) allowed; Malekia's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Status of Immigration Rules, Parliamentary Scrutiny, Delegation of Legislative Power, Human Rights Act 1998 S.6, ECHR Article 8, Policy Vs. Rules, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Status of Immigration Rules Parliamentary Scrutiny Delegation of Legislative Power Human Rights Act 1998 S.6 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appellant/respondent

Anastasia Pankina

Respondent/appellant

Margaret Malekia

Appellant

Aves Ahmed

Appellant

Mohamed Junaideen

Appellant

Irfan Ali

Appellant

Navindra Sankar

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (immigration) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether immigration rules can lawfully incorporate substantive requirements from policy guidance not laid before Parliament
  2. 2 Whether the three-month funds requirement was lawfully part of the rules
  3. 3 At what date compliance with the rules is to be tested (application or appeal)

Ratio Decidendi

The three-month funds requirement was not part of the immigration rules laid before Parliament and could not lawfully be imposed via policy guidance. Only requirements subject to parliamentary scrutiny and certainty can have quasi-legal status. Applicants who had £800 at the time of application satisfied the lawful rule. The Home Secretary must operate the rules in conformity with s.6 of the Human Rights Act, and Article 8 ECHR may require independent consideration where the rules do not provide for it.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Home Secretary dismissed in Pankina; appeals by other applicants (except Malekia) allowed; Malekia's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Home Secretary's appeal against AIT decision in Pankina dismissed.
  • Appeals of Ahmed, Junaideen, Ali, Sankar allowed; they are entitled to succeed.