JR-2024-LON-003394
- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
- Country:
- Judges:
The decision
JR-2024-LON-003394
In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review
In the matter of an application for Judicial Review
The King on the application of
MD NURUL AMIN
Applicant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge FRANCES
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Mr Symes of counsel, instructed by Lexwin Solicitors, for the applicant and Mr Yetman of counsel, instructed by GLD, for the respondent at a hearing on 14 April 2026
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(2) The applicants to pay the respondent’s reasonable costs to be assessed if not agreed.
(3) Permission to appeal is refused because there is no arguable case that I have erred in law.
Signed: J Frances
Upper Tribunal Judge Frances
Dated: 14 April 2026
The date on which this order was sent is given below
For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 15/04/2026
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Notification of appeal rights
A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.
A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).
If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).
Case No: JR-2024-LON-003394
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
14th April 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
MD NURUL AMIN
Applicant
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr M Symes
(instructed by Lexwin Solicitors) for the applicant
Mr J Yetman
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 14 April 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge FRANCES:
1. The applicant challenges the respondent’s decision of 13 September 2024 cancelling permission to enter as a skilled worker.
2. This application has a protracted history set out in the order of Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick dated 22 October 2025 and my order of 16 February 2026. The issue before me is whether the decision to cancel permission to enter with immediate effect was procedurally unfair.
3. In summary, the relevant facts of this case are that, on 15 February 2024, the applicant entered the UK with permission to enter as a skilled worker valid until January 2029. His permission allowed him to work as a Specialist Indian Curry and Tandoori Chef for MHK North Limited, trading as Spice Tandoori in Thurso, Scotland (Spice Tandoori Thurso).
4. On 13 September 2024, the applicant was encountered during an enforcement visit working at North Wick Restaurant Limited, trading as Spice Tandoori in Wick, Scotland (Spice Tandoori Wick). The applicant was interviewed and his visa was cancelled with immediate effect.
5. The decision under challenge states:
On 13/09/2024 you were interviewed by an Immigration Officer, and you admitted that you had knowingly worked in breach of your skilled worker visa as you had Knowingly worked in breach of your skilled worker visa (sic) by working at Tandoori spice 2 Shore, Wick, KW1 4LU. You were asked during interview how long you had been working at Spice Tandoori 2 Shore Wick and you originally stated two days. You had personal belongings such as clothing, medication and bank statements at the address. You then admitted that you had been working at Spice Tandoori Wick for around 6 weeks and on (sic) week commencing 09/09/2024 you worked the following hours at Spice Tandoori 2 Shore Wick KW1 4LU.
09/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
10/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
11/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
12/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
13/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
Your visa conditions states that you are a skilled worker who can take supplementary employment in the same profession for 20 hours per week. You have admitted to working 35 hours in another business which is not your sponsor. Therefore, you have breached skilled worker visa conditions.
During that interview, there was no further evidence presented that would mitigate in your favour.
Evidence provided above demonstrates that you had breached the conditions of your skilled worker visa as a health care worker and that you were aware of this fact.
It is not considered that the circumstances in your case are such that discretion should be exercised in your favour. This is because you have admitted to working in breach of your skilled worker visa by seeking other employment out with your visa condition (sic) which are in line with your skilled worker visa. The Secretary of State therefore cancels your permission to [enter or stay in] the United Kingdom under paragraph 9.8.8 of the Immigration Rules to expire with immediate effect.
This has been explained to you in English and you have said you understood and would like to be given one more chance to sort this out with your employer.
6. The applicant has been granted permission to challenge this decision on the ground that it is procedurally unfair. The grounds submit:
The respondent had failed to give the applicant an adequate opportunity to respond to the respondent's concerns before the decision was made, particularly with respect to the respondent's allegation that he was working in breach of conditions and as to whether the applicant understood himself to be legitimately working within the bounds of supplementary employment, to consider and correct the interview record and to seek legal advice.
7. Supplementary employment is defined as:
In addition to the job specified on the certificate of sponsorship (CoS), a Skilled Worker’s conditions allow them to do extra work if it is:
• in an occupation listed in Tables 1, 2 or 3 of Appendix Skilled Occupations
• no more than 20 hours a week
• outside the working hours covered by the CoS
...
If the extra work meets the above requirements, the applicant does not need to inform the Home Office before taking extra work.
8. In interview the applicant initially stated that he worked at Spice Tandoori Wick two days per week for 14 hours between 3pm and 10pm. He initially denied living in Wick, but after accepting he had a suitcase of clothes at the restaurant and he obtained his medication in Wick, he accepted he lived there but not permanently. The applicant stated he worked 40 hours a week at Spice Tandoori Thurso but he could not give an address for where he lived. When asked how many hours he had worked at Spice Tandoori Wick during the week commencing 9 September 2024, he stated 3pm to 10pm Monday to Friday. Any failure to record Spice Tandoori Wick as the location on Monday 9 September 2024 in the interview record was not material. In addition, the applicant gave the following answers:
Q. How long have you been working at spice tandoori full time ?
A. Around 6 weeks
Q. aware that your sponsorship is for spice tandoori in Thurso?
A. yes
Q. Are you aware for the past 6 week that you have been working in breach of visa conditions?
A. I have done this more hours this week.
Q. How much are you paid for your work here?
A. 2100 per month after tax £1800
Q. How are you paid?
A. paid in cash.
Q. When were you last paid in cash?
A. Shows phone when he got paid £700 in cash 09/09/2024.
Q. How are you paid?
A. Weekly
Q. Always to your bank?
A. No not always
Q. How much do you pay for rent?
A. I don't pay for anything
Q. Why don't you pay any money?
A. I did in Thurso but not here
Q. Does he give you this for free because you work in the restaurant?
A. The boss told me to pause here
9. It is not in dispute that the respondent has the power to cancel the applicant’s leave under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and there is no right of appeal or administrative review of a decision to cancel leave. At the date of decision, the applicable paragraph of the Immigration Rules was 9.8.8 which provides that permission may be cancelled where the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of his permission. The cancellation of permission has serious consequences for the applicant set out at [36] of the applicant’s skeleton argument dated 31 March 2026.
10. It is common ground that what fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision and fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations before the decision is taken. Fairness will very often require that a person is informed of the gist of the case which s/he has to answer because the person affected usually cannot make worthwhile representations without knowing what factors may weigh against their interests: R v SSHD ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 570.
11. The question of whether there has been procedural fairness or not is an objective question for the court to decide for itself, not whether the decision maker acted reasonably: Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 at [46].
12. In this case the applicant was given an opportunity to address the allegation that he had been working in breach of the conditions of his visa because he was interviewed before the decision to cancel his visa was made. The allegation was put to the applicant and he had the opportunity to respond. There was nothing complex about the inquiry and the respondent’s officers asked appropriate questions. It was apparent from the interview record that the applicant understood that he was being asked about his place of work, the days and hours of work, how much and when he was paid, method of payment and where he lived. The applicant unambiguously stated that he had been working at Spice Tandoori Wick from 10 to 13 September 2024 from 3pm to 10pm. This was clearly in breach of the hours permitted as supplementary employment. The applicant was given ample opportunity to explain why his permission to enter should not be cancelled.
13. I am not persuaded by Mr Symes’s submission that this case is on all fours with [160] of Balajigari. The applicant did not ask for a chance to obtain more information. He asked for an opportunity to speak to his employer. The post-decision evidence does not assist the applicant for the reasons given below. Nor am I persuaded that there was no clear indication that the applicant was being accused of working in breach of his conditions. That allegation was squarely put in the interview.
14. On the facts of this case, the applicant was well aware of the case he had to answer and applicant admitted working in excess of 20 hours at Spice Tandoori Wick in the week commencing 9 September 2026. There was no requirement to serve a ‘minded to’ decision in this case: R (Kanwal) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 110 (Admin) at [57].
15. The respondent took into account the other evidence to support the applicant’s admission including the applicant’s bank statements on his mobile phone and that he was paid weekly in cash. The applicant received £700 on 9 September 2024 and he was paid by Spice Tandoori Wick. The applicant had a suitcase of clothes at the restaurant and accepted he was living there and not paying rent. He was unable to provide the address where he was living in Thurso. The applicant had obtained medication in Wick and admitted he had been working there full time for 6 weeks. He was encountered preparing food in the kitchen at Spice Tandoori Wick and tried to walk out of the kitchen when he saw the respondent’s officers.
16. It is not in dispute that the decision to curtail leave is not to be resolved by determination of precedent fact. It was not for the Upper Tribunal to determine for itself whether the applicant had been knowingly working in breach of the conditions of his permission to enter on 13 September 2024, or whether he had admitted the same to the respondent’s officers. The decision that he had done so was subject to challenge on public law grounds: R (Giri) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 784.
17. The applicant had knowledge of the purpose of the visit and knew the respondent was making inquiries about illegal working. There was no need for a detailed statement from the applicant and he had a fair opportunity to explain.
18. The decision of 13 September 2024 adequately explains that the applicant’s permission to enter has been cancelled because there was unequivocal evidence that the applicant was working in breach of his conditions. The questions and answers in interview were clear and straight forward. There was no further information before the respondent which might require further inquiry. The respondent gave adequate reasons for why discretion was not exercised in the applicant’s favour.
19. The respondent’s decision that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had worked more than 20 hours at Spice Tandoori Wick was one which was reasonably open to the respondent on the evidence before her at the date of decision. The post-decision evidence was not relevant and does not assist the applicant in any event.
20. The respondent’s officers looked at the applicant’s bank account on his mobile phone. A screenshot of a wage payment receipt is exhibited in the bundle. It shows that all payments from North Wick Restaurant could be shown. None have been exhibited in the bundle. The bank statement from the Bank of Scotland covers the period from 10 September to 15 November 2024 and shows a payment from Spice Tandoori Thurso on 30 September 2024 notwithstanding the applicant’s permission was cancelled on 13 September 2024. The post-decision evidence including the numerous witness statements does not demonstrate that the alleged procedural failings were material.
21. I have considered R (Singaram) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1375 and the submissions made by Mr Yetman. The case before me is not a case where the applicant had no opportunity to make representations as to why his visa should not be cancelled and the respondent was informed of all the facts the applicant wanted her to consider. There was no material breach of the principles of procedural fairness so as to render the decision unlawful.
22. The decision to cancel permission to enter with immediate effect was not procedurally unfair within the terms of Balajigari as alleged in the grounds. The decision of 13 September 2024 was not unlawful, irrational or contrary to guidance. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
23. There was an application for permission to appeal but no grounds were articulated before me. I refuse permission because there is no arguable case that I have erred in law.
~~~~0~~~~
In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review
In the matter of an application for Judicial Review
The King on the application of
MD NURUL AMIN
Applicant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
ORDER
BEFORE Upper Tribunal Judge FRANCES
HAVING considered all documents lodged and having heard Mr Symes of counsel, instructed by Lexwin Solicitors, for the applicant and Mr Yetman of counsel, instructed by GLD, for the respondent at a hearing on 14 April 2026
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons in the attached judgment.
(2) The applicants to pay the respondent’s reasonable costs to be assessed if not agreed.
(3) Permission to appeal is refused because there is no arguable case that I have erred in law.
Signed: J Frances
Upper Tribunal Judge Frances
Dated: 14 April 2026
The date on which this order was sent is given below
For completion by the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber
Sent / Handed to the applicant, respondent and any interested party / the applicant's, respondent’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date): 15/04/2026
Solicitors:
Ref No.
Home Office Ref:
Notification of appeal rights
A decision by the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review is a decision that disposes of proceedings.
A party may appeal against such a decision to the Court of Appeal on a point of law only. Any party who wishes to appeal should apply to the Upper Tribunal for permission, at the hearing at which the decision is given. If no application is made, the Tribunal must nonetheless consider at the hearing whether to give or refuse permission to appeal (rule 44(4B) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).
If the Tribunal refuses permission, either in response to an application or by virtue of rule 44(4B), then the party wishing to appeal can apply for permission from the Court of Appeal itself. This must be done by filing an appellant’s notice with the Civil Appeals Office of the Court of Appeal within 28 days of the date the Tribunal’s decision on permission to appeal was sent (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52D 3.3).
Case No: JR-2024-LON-003394
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR
14th April 2026
Before:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
THE KING
on the application of
MD NURUL AMIN
Applicant
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr M Symes
(instructed by Lexwin Solicitors) for the applicant
Mr J Yetman
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent
Hearing date: 14 April 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judge FRANCES:
1. The applicant challenges the respondent’s decision of 13 September 2024 cancelling permission to enter as a skilled worker.
2. This application has a protracted history set out in the order of Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick dated 22 October 2025 and my order of 16 February 2026. The issue before me is whether the decision to cancel permission to enter with immediate effect was procedurally unfair.
3. In summary, the relevant facts of this case are that, on 15 February 2024, the applicant entered the UK with permission to enter as a skilled worker valid until January 2029. His permission allowed him to work as a Specialist Indian Curry and Tandoori Chef for MHK North Limited, trading as Spice Tandoori in Thurso, Scotland (Spice Tandoori Thurso).
4. On 13 September 2024, the applicant was encountered during an enforcement visit working at North Wick Restaurant Limited, trading as Spice Tandoori in Wick, Scotland (Spice Tandoori Wick). The applicant was interviewed and his visa was cancelled with immediate effect.
5. The decision under challenge states:
On 13/09/2024 you were interviewed by an Immigration Officer, and you admitted that you had knowingly worked in breach of your skilled worker visa as you had Knowingly worked in breach of your skilled worker visa (sic) by working at Tandoori spice 2 Shore, Wick, KW1 4LU. You were asked during interview how long you had been working at Spice Tandoori 2 Shore Wick and you originally stated two days. You had personal belongings such as clothing, medication and bank statements at the address. You then admitted that you had been working at Spice Tandoori Wick for around 6 weeks and on (sic) week commencing 09/09/2024 you worked the following hours at Spice Tandoori 2 Shore Wick KW1 4LU.
09/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
10/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
11/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
12/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
13/09/2024 15:00 - 22:00
Your visa conditions states that you are a skilled worker who can take supplementary employment in the same profession for 20 hours per week. You have admitted to working 35 hours in another business which is not your sponsor. Therefore, you have breached skilled worker visa conditions.
During that interview, there was no further evidence presented that would mitigate in your favour.
Evidence provided above demonstrates that you had breached the conditions of your skilled worker visa as a health care worker and that you were aware of this fact.
It is not considered that the circumstances in your case are such that discretion should be exercised in your favour. This is because you have admitted to working in breach of your skilled worker visa by seeking other employment out with your visa condition (sic) which are in line with your skilled worker visa. The Secretary of State therefore cancels your permission to [enter or stay in] the United Kingdom under paragraph 9.8.8 of the Immigration Rules to expire with immediate effect.
This has been explained to you in English and you have said you understood and would like to be given one more chance to sort this out with your employer.
6. The applicant has been granted permission to challenge this decision on the ground that it is procedurally unfair. The grounds submit:
The respondent had failed to give the applicant an adequate opportunity to respond to the respondent's concerns before the decision was made, particularly with respect to the respondent's allegation that he was working in breach of conditions and as to whether the applicant understood himself to be legitimately working within the bounds of supplementary employment, to consider and correct the interview record and to seek legal advice.
7. Supplementary employment is defined as:
In addition to the job specified on the certificate of sponsorship (CoS), a Skilled Worker’s conditions allow them to do extra work if it is:
• in an occupation listed in Tables 1, 2 or 3 of Appendix Skilled Occupations
• no more than 20 hours a week
• outside the working hours covered by the CoS
...
If the extra work meets the above requirements, the applicant does not need to inform the Home Office before taking extra work.
8. In interview the applicant initially stated that he worked at Spice Tandoori Wick two days per week for 14 hours between 3pm and 10pm. He initially denied living in Wick, but after accepting he had a suitcase of clothes at the restaurant and he obtained his medication in Wick, he accepted he lived there but not permanently. The applicant stated he worked 40 hours a week at Spice Tandoori Thurso but he could not give an address for where he lived. When asked how many hours he had worked at Spice Tandoori Wick during the week commencing 9 September 2024, he stated 3pm to 10pm Monday to Friday. Any failure to record Spice Tandoori Wick as the location on Monday 9 September 2024 in the interview record was not material. In addition, the applicant gave the following answers:
Q. How long have you been working at spice tandoori full time ?
A. Around 6 weeks
Q. aware that your sponsorship is for spice tandoori in Thurso?
A. yes
Q. Are you aware for the past 6 week that you have been working in breach of visa conditions?
A. I have done this more hours this week.
Q. How much are you paid for your work here?
A. 2100 per month after tax £1800
Q. How are you paid?
A. paid in cash.
Q. When were you last paid in cash?
A. Shows phone when he got paid £700 in cash 09/09/2024.
Q. How are you paid?
A. Weekly
Q. Always to your bank?
A. No not always
Q. How much do you pay for rent?
A. I don't pay for anything
Q. Why don't you pay any money?
A. I did in Thurso but not here
Q. Does he give you this for free because you work in the restaurant?
A. The boss told me to pause here
9. It is not in dispute that the respondent has the power to cancel the applicant’s leave under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and there is no right of appeal or administrative review of a decision to cancel leave. At the date of decision, the applicable paragraph of the Immigration Rules was 9.8.8 which provides that permission may be cancelled where the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of his permission. The cancellation of permission has serious consequences for the applicant set out at [36] of the applicant’s skeleton argument dated 31 March 2026.
10. It is common ground that what fairness demands is dependent on the context of the decision and fairness will very often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations before the decision is taken. Fairness will very often require that a person is informed of the gist of the case which s/he has to answer because the person affected usually cannot make worthwhile representations without knowing what factors may weigh against their interests: R v SSHD ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 570.
11. The question of whether there has been procedural fairness or not is an objective question for the court to decide for itself, not whether the decision maker acted reasonably: Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 at [46].
12. In this case the applicant was given an opportunity to address the allegation that he had been working in breach of the conditions of his visa because he was interviewed before the decision to cancel his visa was made. The allegation was put to the applicant and he had the opportunity to respond. There was nothing complex about the inquiry and the respondent’s officers asked appropriate questions. It was apparent from the interview record that the applicant understood that he was being asked about his place of work, the days and hours of work, how much and when he was paid, method of payment and where he lived. The applicant unambiguously stated that he had been working at Spice Tandoori Wick from 10 to 13 September 2024 from 3pm to 10pm. This was clearly in breach of the hours permitted as supplementary employment. The applicant was given ample opportunity to explain why his permission to enter should not be cancelled.
13. I am not persuaded by Mr Symes’s submission that this case is on all fours with [160] of Balajigari. The applicant did not ask for a chance to obtain more information. He asked for an opportunity to speak to his employer. The post-decision evidence does not assist the applicant for the reasons given below. Nor am I persuaded that there was no clear indication that the applicant was being accused of working in breach of his conditions. That allegation was squarely put in the interview.
14. On the facts of this case, the applicant was well aware of the case he had to answer and applicant admitted working in excess of 20 hours at Spice Tandoori Wick in the week commencing 9 September 2026. There was no requirement to serve a ‘minded to’ decision in this case: R (Kanwal) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 110 (Admin) at [57].
15. The respondent took into account the other evidence to support the applicant’s admission including the applicant’s bank statements on his mobile phone and that he was paid weekly in cash. The applicant received £700 on 9 September 2024 and he was paid by Spice Tandoori Wick. The applicant had a suitcase of clothes at the restaurant and accepted he was living there and not paying rent. He was unable to provide the address where he was living in Thurso. The applicant had obtained medication in Wick and admitted he had been working there full time for 6 weeks. He was encountered preparing food in the kitchen at Spice Tandoori Wick and tried to walk out of the kitchen when he saw the respondent’s officers.
16. It is not in dispute that the decision to curtail leave is not to be resolved by determination of precedent fact. It was not for the Upper Tribunal to determine for itself whether the applicant had been knowingly working in breach of the conditions of his permission to enter on 13 September 2024, or whether he had admitted the same to the respondent’s officers. The decision that he had done so was subject to challenge on public law grounds: R (Giri) v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 784.
17. The applicant had knowledge of the purpose of the visit and knew the respondent was making inquiries about illegal working. There was no need for a detailed statement from the applicant and he had a fair opportunity to explain.
18. The decision of 13 September 2024 adequately explains that the applicant’s permission to enter has been cancelled because there was unequivocal evidence that the applicant was working in breach of his conditions. The questions and answers in interview were clear and straight forward. There was no further information before the respondent which might require further inquiry. The respondent gave adequate reasons for why discretion was not exercised in the applicant’s favour.
19. The respondent’s decision that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had worked more than 20 hours at Spice Tandoori Wick was one which was reasonably open to the respondent on the evidence before her at the date of decision. The post-decision evidence was not relevant and does not assist the applicant in any event.
20. The respondent’s officers looked at the applicant’s bank account on his mobile phone. A screenshot of a wage payment receipt is exhibited in the bundle. It shows that all payments from North Wick Restaurant could be shown. None have been exhibited in the bundle. The bank statement from the Bank of Scotland covers the period from 10 September to 15 November 2024 and shows a payment from Spice Tandoori Thurso on 30 September 2024 notwithstanding the applicant’s permission was cancelled on 13 September 2024. The post-decision evidence including the numerous witness statements does not demonstrate that the alleged procedural failings were material.
21. I have considered R (Singaram) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 1375 and the submissions made by Mr Yetman. The case before me is not a case where the applicant had no opportunity to make representations as to why his visa should not be cancelled and the respondent was informed of all the facts the applicant wanted her to consider. There was no material breach of the principles of procedural fairness so as to render the decision unlawful.
22. The decision to cancel permission to enter with immediate effect was not procedurally unfair within the terms of Balajigari as alleged in the grounds. The decision of 13 September 2024 was not unlawful, irrational or contrary to guidance. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
23. There was an application for permission to appeal but no grounds were articulated before me. I refuse permission because there is no arguable case that I have erred in law.
~~~~0~~~~