The governing principle laid down by Pankina as understood and applied in subsequent cases was that a substantive or material change to the content of the Immigration Rules must be made by way of amending rules which must be laid before Parliament, and that it was not permissible to cross-refer to the possibility of further substantial or material changes in documents such as policy guidance statements which are not subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, the distinction was between the substantive requirements that an applicant has to meet and the means of proving such eligibility which can properly be the subject of policy guidance.
Judges:
Singh J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 2855 (Admin)
Links:
Citing:
Explained – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Pankina CA 23-Jun-2010
Each claimant had graduated from a tertiary college and wished to stay on in the UK. They challenged the points based system for assessing elgibility introduced in 2008 after they had commenced their studies. The new rules tightened the criteria for . .
Cited by:
Cited – Alvi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 18-Jul-2012
The claimant had entered as a student, and then stayed under a work permit. New rules were brought in, and because his occupation as a physiotherapy assistant was not listed, he was not credited with sufficient points for a permit. The Court of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448097