CaseBack to Cases
Agubata v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Agubata v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 140
The Court of Appeal allowed A’s appeal as there was a clear distinction between the mandatory requirements contained in the immigration rules and the contents of the policy guidance. Under SSHD v Pankina  EWCA Civ 719, the UT was wrong to interpret the policy guidance as a part of the rules.The approach of the UT was wrong – as established by FA and AA (PBS: effect of Pankina) Nigeria  UKUT 304 (IAC) and CDS (PBS: “available”: Article 8) Brazil  UKUT 00305 (IAC).
The Court of Appeal called for “a need for common sense” explaining that where sponsorship was provided, refusing a case for not adhering to the guidance did not follow because the circumstances required consideration.Back to Cases