Agubata v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Citation

Agubata v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 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 [2010] 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 [2010] UKUT 304 (IAC) and CDS (PBS: “available”: Article 8) Brazil [2010] 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.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/140.html