Tribunal decisions

The decision

Case No: JR-2025-LON-002131
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Field House,
Breams Buildings
London, EC4A 1WR

15th April 2026

Before:

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JACKSON

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

THE KING
on the application of
MD ROHIJ & 19 OTHERS
Applicants
- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr P Lewis of Counsel
(instructed by Lawmatic Solicitors), for the applicant

Mr T Brown of Counsel
(instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the respondent

Hearing date: 7th April 2026

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judge Jackson:
1. The Applicants in this application for Judicial Review comprise of 20 individual Bangladeshi nationals who all seek to challenge the Respondent’s decisions all dated 28 March 2025 to refuse their applications for a Direct Airside Transit Visa (“DATV”). The decisions under challenge all include a common component and a single ground of challenge in relation to that; with one additional reason for refusal in 18 of the 20 cases (all except the First Applicant, Md Rohij and the eleventh Applicant, Md Fuad Hosain) and a second ground of challenge specific to those 18 cases.
2. The core issue in all of these cases is whether the Respondent rationally refused the applications and in accordance with her own guidance for such decisions.
Factual background
3. On various dates between 6 and 16 September 2023, the Applicants made applications for DATVs to travel from their homes in Bangladesh to Guyana in South America to take up offers of employment with Royal Chicken Inc. The First Applicant’s offer of employment was to be a driver, the remaining 19 Applicants had offers of employment as labourers. Each applicant submitted the required application form to the Respondent, together with a cover letter form Lawmatic Solicitors (which referred to their instructions for all 20 Applicants); a copy of the Applicant’s passport, the Applicant’s bank statement; an employment letter and the employment contract; confirmation that the Applicants would be issued with an employment visa on arrival in Guyana and that emigration clearance had been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in Guyana; the Applicant’s CV and documents in relation to their education and skills; and air ticket confirmation.
4. The application forms all stated that ‘my employer or company’ was paying towards the cost of their visit and that this was ‘according to the employment contract, my employer will pay for my travel expenses’. Albeit the employment contracts, in identical terms (save for differences between employment as a driver at a different rate of pay and as a labourer), provided for the cost of the outward journey from Bangladesh to Guyana to be initially paid by the employer as an advance of wages, to be recovered from the monthly salary. Travel expenses for the Applicants to return to Bangladesh at the end of their contract were to be borne by the employer.
5. Of the documents in relation to visas, employment and itineraries, some referred to all 20 Applicants in a single letter and some were in relation to a partial group of the 20 Applicants at a time.
6. In the extra information box on the application form, the Applicants all state ‘I managed to get a return ticket just to secure my journey and prevent any unavoidable circumstances during my travel.’.
7. The proposed route of travel with the initial applications for all Applicants was a journey from Dhaka to Dubai to London Heathrow to Barbados and finally to Bridgetown in Guyana. The itineraries all included return flights showing the same route in reverse approximately a month later. The itineraries were for groups of Applicants with different groups departing on different dates in October 2023.
8. The applications were initially all refused by the Respondent in September 2023, with no reasons given for the refusal in any of the decisions. The Applicants issued a claim for Judicial Review, with lead applicants agreed and ultimately the applications settled by consent with the Respondent agreeing to withdraw and reconsider the applications.
9. The Respondent again refused all of the applications in decisions dated 28 March 2024, again with no reasons for refusal given. Following pre-action correspondence, the Respondent again agreed to withdraw and reconsider the applications.
10. The Respondent refused all of the applications for a third time in decisions made on 24 June 2024, again without any reasons for refusal being given. In response to pre-action correspondence, the Respondent gave reasons for refusal of the applications. No copy of these decisions or this round of pre-action correspondence was available within the current proceedings, but it is understood that two issues were raised as to the reasonableness of the route of travel and as to discrepancies between the Applicant’s financial circumstances as declared and large deposits in their bank accounts.
11. A further application for Judicial Review was issued in respect of these refusals, which was settled by consent on 11 December 2024. The terms of settlement included that the Applicants had 21 days to submit any further evidence in support of their applications, following which the Respondent would reconsider their applications within three months thereafter, absent special circumstances.
12. Representations were made by the Applicants’ solicitors on behalf of all of the Applicants in a single document. The representations included a letter from Royal Chicken Inc stating that employment offers for all 20 Applicants had been extended to 31 March 2025; a letter from the Guyana Ministry of Home Affairs dated 23 December 2024, confirming employment visas for all 20 Applicants and a flight itinerary for a route from Dhaka to Bridgetown via Dubai and London Heathrow.
13. In relation to flight routes, the following was said:
“2. London’s status as a global hub for international air traffic means that is often necessary to transit through London to travel between two destinations with historical connections to the UK, such as Bangladesh and Guyana. Although New York’s JFK is a similar international hub airport, there are many factors which would make transiting through London airports a preferable solution.
3. For example, imagining an arbitrary departure date of 2 February and return date of 1 December, and using the popular Google Flights search engine, the cheapest return ticket between Dhaka and Georgetown is £1,766, but involves an overnight stopover in JFK, which might cause difficulties in applying for a US C-1 transit visa, and takes over 50 hours to complete (Figures 1, 2). Excluding a JFK stopover, the cheapest route is £1,942, involves a 4-hour stopover at London Gatwick airport, and is around 10 hours shorter (Figures 3, 4). This is a considerable time saving and would thus make sense for the Applicants to take such a route.
4. In addition, prices on online flight searches can be highly variable, involving highly volatile real-term pricing. Flight search ticket prices might not even reflect the real ticket price. For example, searching at different times for these same flights using the same search conditions created different prices (Figures 5, 6). It should not be assumed that the results of online flight checkers are replicable or capable of evaluating the reasonableness of the Applicants’ flight routes. This is especially the case given different airlines’ baggage allowances, which are highly relevant to those who like the Applicants are planning to stay long-term in Guyana.”
14. The representations also included a section on Guyana’s economy and need for migrant labour, with reference to a rising economy and skill/labour shortage such that it is reasonable to assume that Royal Chicken Inc. has good reasons to seek overseas workers especially since several of the appellants had relevant skills and experience. Examples of recruitment of foreign nurses and truck drivers were given. Further reference is made to historical and cultural links between Guyana and Bangladesh and that it would be easy for the Applicants to integrate into cultural life in Guyana and every reason to believe they will take up their contracted positions in Guyana and not breach the conditions of a DATV.
15. The final section of the representations was in relation to the use of banks in Bangladesh, which said as follows:
“18. You have previously suggested that our clients’ financial circumstances are not credible because, in some instances, their bank statements do not show their earnings being regularly paid into their bank accounts, or because they have at times made large cash deposits. This too is misconceived.
19. Bangladesh differs from the UK, in that most people do not use their bank accounts for all daily transactions. Only 50% of Bangladeshis even have bank accounts.
20. In a 2023 nationally representative survey of lower-income Bangladeshis, 85% had no bank accounts, and of the 50% who had any kind of financial services account (including digital/mobile financial services), only 69% had used it in past three months. Among those in the sample who had bank accounts, 47.5% used them less than once a month.
21. 43% of bank account holders used them as savings accounts, keeping their savings for an average of 21 months.
22. Thus, the presence of large case deposits and a small amount of activity visible in the bank account should not be taken as a credibility point against the applicants.
23. Strikingly, 90% of the sample reported that they received their core income in cash, and of those who received additional income, 89% were paid in cash. 95% of the sample paid their rent in cash.
24. In addition, the majority of those who use the most popular category of financial service – mobile finance apps – used them primarily for cash transactions. Only 39% of Bangladeshis have internet access.
25. In this context, self-employed workers are likely to receive regular payment for services in cash or through online case deposit without reference to a bank account.
26. It is submitted that the ways in which the applicants use their bank accounts is entirely in keeping with the typical ways in which ordinary Bangladeshis use them.”
16. The Respondent refused all of the Applicants’ applications in decisions dated 28 March 2025; albeit the Applicants state that they were not served with these decisions at the time, with some being sent to their solicitors on 19 June 2025 and the remainder on 23 June 2025.
17. On the day of the hearing, the Applicants submitted a further letter from Royal Chicken Inc dated 4 April 2026 stating that the job offers for all 20 Applicants (listed by name in the letter) have been extended to 31 October 2026.
The refusal decisions
18. The refusal decisions for all 20 Applicants are materially identical in respect of one of the reasons for refusal and for 18 of the Applicants, also materially the same in respect of a second reason for refusal (albeit with details specific to each included as to their finances). It is not therefore necessary to set out the terms of each refusal letter individually, instead I set out the common reason for refusal to all 20 Applicants as taken from the First Applicant’s decision letter and then an example from the fourteenth Applicant’s decision letter of the second reason common to 18 of the Applicants.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
You are a citizen of a country or territorial entity specified in Schedule 1 to the Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) Order 2014 (as amended). Such persons seeking to pass through the United Kingdom en route to another country or territory without entering the United Kingdom require a transit visa.
On 14/09/2023 you made an application for a direct airside transit visa for the UK. This application was originally refused on 29/09/2023, and subsequently re-refused on 14/11/2023, 28/03/2024 and 24/06/2024. The most recent refusal has been referred for reconsideration.
The decision
You have applied for a direct airside transit visa to pass through the United Kingdom en route to Guyana. I have carefully considered your application, but I am not satisfied that you qualify for such a visa for the following reasons:
• I am not satisfied that you genuinely intend to transit the UK airside.
• I am not satisfied that the reason for choosing such a routing is reasonable and credible.
This is because:
• There are numerous alternative routes you can take from your home country to Guyana, which do not require travel via the UK. A number of these alternative routes are quicker and/or less expensive than your proposed route.
• In an email from your solicitors dated 14/01/2025, a number of alternative flights have been listed, with an example travel date of 02/02/2025 both including and excluding fights via the USA. This email has suggested a that a route via London Gatwick is 10 hours shorter than travelling via the USA and the considerable time saving makes sense for you to take such a route. However London Gatwick does not offer airside transit facilities, so such a proposed route would not be available under your current application.
• The revised flight bookings supplied in the further information email dated 31/12/2024 from your solicitor shows a proposed route on 15/01/2025 via Dubai, London Heathrow and Bridgetown, with a journey time of 31 and ½ hours, but doesn’t show the cost of the total journey, so a direct comparison with alternative flights is not possible. However, as an example of alternative journeys which don’t require transit through the UK, a search of available flights using Skycanner.net on 26/03/2025 for a one way journey from Bangladesh to Guyana on 31/05/2025 shows a number of alternative options. You could travel via Mumbai and JFK New York at a cost of £852, with a journey time of 44 hours 40 minutes, without an overnight stay in the USA. Alternative journeys using the same search criteria, shows a journey via Istanbul and Toronto, at a cost of £1,088 and a journey time of 29 hours 20 minutes, or via Delhi and JFK New York at a cost of £872 and a journey time of 35 hours 25 minutes. Numerous other alternative flights and routes are available, which do not require transit through the UK.
• It is accepted that different routes have different time/cost advantages and disadvantages, and the costs of the bookings will vary depending on when the flights are booked and when the journey is to take place. However, it is noted that your original application was refused in September 2023, and you have had ample time to source alternative routes which don’t go via the UK. It would appear that you have chosen not to do this.
• The stated purpose of your journey is to travel to Guyana to take up employment. The apparent insistence of travelling via the UK, and delaying your journey to Guyana by 18 months as a result, leads me to doubt the purpose of your travel, when numerous alternative routes have always been available which, if taken, would have enabled you to take up your employment in Guyana much sooner.
19. An example of the additional reason for refusal for 18 of the 20 Applicants, taken from the fourteenth Applicant’s decision but is materially the same in the other decisions in terms of the Respondent not being satisfied that the financial circumstances are as declared is as follows:
• In your application you state that you are self employed as a junior electrician, and have declared an annual income of 240,000 BDT. You have provided a bank statement for an account in your name at Islami Bank, account number ending […]. This covers a period of just over 3 months from 08/05/2023 to 27/08/2023, and shows cash deposits of 386,000 BDT, which is more than one and a half times your stated annual earnings. As a result of the discrepancy between your stated income, and your bank deposits, I am not satisfied that your financial circumstances are as declared, which leads me to doubt the credibility of your application and the information you have provided.
20. This example shows a somewhat middle ground in terms of the extent of the discrepancy between earnings and deposits. The declared income, employment and bank details differ between the Applicants, with a range of differences between claimed income and deposits. One decision referred to more than an annual income being deposited in just 2 weeks in the month before the application was made; some were similar in the period of a month, two months, three or four months showing high deposits of more than the declared income, up to a period of 19 months covered. The deposits were all in excess of stated income, up to almost four times that claimed annually (with most in the one and a half to two times range).
Legal and policy framework
21. A transit passenger who wishes to transit through the United Kingdom without entering it requires a transit visa pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration (Passenger Transit Visa) Order 2014. The Order defines a ‘transit passenger’ and contains exemptions from the requirement to hold a transit visa; neither of which are relevant to the present proceedings where there is no dispute that the Applicants require a transit visa. Section 6 of the Order states that an application for a transit visa may be made to any British High Commission, Embassy or Consulate which accepts such applications. The Order does not otherwise specify the requirements for a grant or reasons for refusal of such an application.
22. Applications for a DATV are covered only by guidance, the current guidance is contained in the document entitled ‘Transit’, version 7 published on 13 March 2023. The guidance, so far as relevant to this application, includes:
DATV: consider an application
…
When considering an application, you must check the application in line with the mandatory identity checks.
Those who are transiting airside are not subject to the Immigration Rules, however you still need to be satisfied that the applicant is a genuine Directive Airside Transit visa applicant and there are no reasons that make it inappropriate to issue a DATV.
The following factors may help you assess if an applicant is a genuine airside transit visitor:
• entry or visa requirements for destination depending on applicant’s nationality – refer to Travel Information Manual or embassy websites
• if needed, does the applicant have a valid visa or entry clearance for the country they are traveling to or documentary evidence of acceptability in that country
• the credibility of the application as a whole:
◦ the main purpose of the journey
◦ the applicant’s circumstances, including travel history
• confirmed onward books in the applicant’s name from the same airport as they arrived at
• details and availability of connecting flights
• destination
• reasonable transit route:
◦ is it reasonable for an individual to be travelling from the country of origin to their destination through the UK
◦ the Home Office does not specify what routes are acceptable for this purpose, however there should be a clear reason for why they are travelling through the UK, such as it forming part of a journey from east to west
◦ an example of an unreasonable transit route may be an individual travelling from Australia to New Zealand, seeking to transit through the UK
◦ on their way to another destination county outside the common travel area (CTA) – see CTA guidance for further information
• is there evidence to suggest that an applicant intends to attempt to enter the UK (for example to work, study, access medical treatment or public funds)
• any local intelligence or results of checks
Other considerations:
• remember your duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children: Section 55 of the Border and Citizenship Act
• Vulnerable Adults and Children guidance
• UKVI Adult Safeguarding Strategy
• UKVI Safeguarding Adults tookit
• UKVI Safeguarding Adults action plan
• Border Force guidance on Children
• Modern Slavery guidance and considerations
• Border Force guidance on Modern Slavery
The applicant should not be intended to, or need to:
• pass through UK Immigration Control for any reason, including to collect luggage
• change airport
• transit to anywhere in the Common Travel Area (CTA)
You must look carefully at applications with unusual routings or destinations. For example when there is no obvious need to transit through the UK, such as an applicant travelling from south east Asia to the Middle East passing through London. Or an unusual final destination and the application has no plausible explanation for travelling to that country, particularly where they are travelling on to a country where they do not have visa requirements and bookings may be made simply to enable the person to land in the UK and present themselves to a Border Force officer.
…
DATV: issue visa
DATVs are not issued under the Immigration Rules. In order to issue a person with a DATV the above facts should be considered and you must be satisfied:

• they genuinely intend to transit the UK airside
• they intend to proceed to their country of final destination
• the reason for choosing such a routing is reasonable and credible
• the reasons for travelling to the final destination are credible
• they will be admissible in the county of final destination (and on the return journey if transiting through the UK)
• they can remain airside in transit – for example, passengers cannot remain airside at some airports
• there are no other reasons why it would be inappropriate to issue a DATV such as criminal history, previous deception or breaches of UK immigration law – you can use the suitability requirements in Part 9: grounds for refusal as a guide, but you cannot refuse under these rules as DATVs are not governed by the Immigration Rules (see DATV: refuse a visa for more details)
…
DATV: refuse a visa
You must refuse a DATV application if you are not satisfied:
• they genuinely intend to transit the UK airside
• they intend to proceed to their country of final destination
• the reason for choosing such a routing is reasonable and credible
• the reasons for travelling to the final destination are credible
• they will be admissible in the country of final destination (and on the return journey if transiting through the UK)
• they can and intend to remain airside in transit
Ground 1 – Misapplication of the guidance and irrationality
23. The first ground of challenge is that the Respondent’s decisions failed to apply her own guidance (as set above) and overall reached an irrational conclusion in refusing the applications for DATVs. The Applicants’ case is that the transit route via the United Kingdom was clearly not unreasonable in the sense set out in the guidance in that it was part of a journey travelling from east (Bangladesh) to west (Guyana). The guidance does not require a person to show that the chosen route is the fastest or cheapest; nor does it require that an applicant is required to produce evidence that they have considered and ruled out alternative routes.
24. In relation to the Respondent’s reasons, the Applicants’ claim that these include an obvious error, that it would have been quicker and easier for the Applicants to have obtained a transit visa for travel through a different country such as the US or Canada. The decisions relied on no evidence for that statement and there was no rational basis for it. Whilst accepted that the overall burden is on the applicant, the positive case asserted by the Respondent must be proved by her.
25. The grounds of challenge refer in particular to what are said to be obvious points that a further tranche of visa applications to a different country would have incurred further visa application fees (which would be onerous for a group of workers on low wages) and may also have been refused. The Respondent does not adduce any evidence as to visa requirements or fees for transit through the US or Canada, nor of the likelihood of success for such an application.
26. The Applicants accept that the Respondent was entitled to consider the route of travel, but the way in which that was done in this case was obviously irrational as the centre piece of that reasoning was that the Applicants were not genuine transit visitors because they had chosen to pursue legal proceedings rather than travelling via an alternative route. The Applicants at all times had a reasonable expectation of their applications being assessed and decided upon fairly and in accordance with the guidance above and the repeated refusals by the Respondent to do so does not amount to inactivity on their part, but a reasonable approach in all of the circumstances.
27. At the oral hearing, on behalf of the Applicants, Mr Lewis relied on the written grounds of challenge and his skeleton argument, making additional points orally. He emphasised the context of delay in this case being caused by the Respondent’s repeated failures in decision making and that it was perfectly proper for the Applicants to pursue these legal proceedings in those circumstances rather than simply finding an alternative route to take up their employment in Guyana. Mr Lewis further suggested that an additional reason for pursuing these proceedings was that the Applicants may not wish to have a refusal of an application on their immigration history.
28. Mr Lewis submitted that the Applicants travel arrangements had all been made by their prospective employer in Guyana, with the cost to be paid initially by the employer and then recovered from the Applicants’ salary. The prospective employer chose the travel route as an effective and reasonable one in all of the circumstances. Whilst there was no evidence that the prospective employer actually chose the route, made the arrangements or any of the flight bookings, Mr Lewis submitted that this could be inferred from the fact that the same arrangements were made for all 20 Applicants on the same flights.
29. The employment contract was silent as to who would pay for the Applicants’ visa applications, but it could be inferred that the Applicants would be required to make the arrangements for a DATV themselves.
30. The employer had previously employed ten Bangladeshi nationals who obtained DATVs for transit through the United Kingdom and who successfully used these for travel to take up their employment. There was no doubt in any of these cases that the employer was bona fides nor that any of the Applicants had an incentive to do anything other than take up their offer of employment with them in Guyana. Mr Lewis suggested that the fact that employment offers had been kept open for some three years only reinforced the severe labour shortage faced in Guyana and the genuine nature of the offers.
31. In essence, the Respondent’s case is that the applications were lawfully and rationally considered and refused in line with the relevant guidance. In particular, the Respondent was entitled to consider that alternative routes were available and the Applicants have not disputed the conclusion that some alternative routes were quicker and/or cheaper and there was no evidence at all from the Applicants that they had considered and/or costed any alternative routes or reasons as to why such alternatives had been rejected by them. In any event, the Applicant’s mischaracterise the refusals as being on the basis that they should have taken an alternative route, in fact it was because the Respondent was not satisfied that they were genuine direct airside transit visitors nor that they had given a reasonable and credible reason for their routing through the United Kingdom. It was rationally open to the Respondent to reach such a conclusion and there was no requirement for the decision to be supported on any particular evidence, the burden being on the Applicants to establish the requirements are met.
32. On behalf of the Respondent at the oral hearing, Mr Brown relied upon the Detailed Grounds of Defence and his skeleton argument, with additional submissions made orally. In relation to this first ground, he emphasised that the sole question for the decision-maker was whether each Applicant was a genuine direct airside transit visitor; with the guidance setting out a range of factors to consider to answer this question. Those factors did not include any freestanding or overriding matter which was determinative, nor did the guidance contain a closed list of relevant factors. The factors did expressly include the reasonableness of the route to be taken and credibility of the Applicant, including by reference to, but not limited to, their travel history.
33. The Applicants’ challenge to the conclusion that they were not genuine direct airside transfer visitors is challenged only on rationality grounds, such that they will need to show that no rational decision-maker could have refused their applications for the reasons given. In an attempt to do so, the Upper Tribunal has been invited to draw a number of inferences which are not sustainable on the basis of the applications and representations made. These included an assertion as to (i) an ongoing labour shortage in Guyana which was serious enough to justify holding primarily unskilled labouring jobs open for a period of three years for these Applicants; (ii) that the travel arrangements were all made by the prospective employer, which is not evidenced in any of the documents, the itineraries provided by the Applicants’ solicitors only showed routing through the United Kingdom and were for return flights to Bangladesh within a month; and (iii) as to why legal proceedings were pursued rather than an alternative route being used. Mr Lewis had suggested the latter was required by airlines as one way tickets were not possible, but again this was not in evidence.
34. In relation to the reasonableness of the route, Mr Brown emphasised that there was no evidence at all from the Applicants that since their applications and initial refusals in September 2023; that they had considered alternative routes of travel or given reasons for rejecting them (relative to travel through the United Kingdom) nor had they evidenced any of the practical arrangements required for their travel. The only positive assertion made for a route through the United Kingdom was that a route via London Gatwick was quicker than one through JFK in New York; but that was not practically possible in any event as Gatwick does not have airside transit facilities. Absent that suggestion, it was entirely unexplained why a travel route transiting through the United Kingdom was reasonable and the burden was on the Applicants to establish this. It would be an entirely reasonable expectation that they would be able to explain this given their continued insistence on a route through the United Kingdom over a significant period of time which delayed the start of the employment offered.
35. Mr Brown accepted that the Applicants only needed to show that the travel route through the United Kingdom was a reasonable route and not the only available route they could take; but repeated the submission that they had failed to do this. When considering the wider context, including the Applicants’ economic reasons for travelling to Guyana to work, it simply made no sense for the Applicants not to have considered other options which may have enabled them to take up their employment much sooner than pursuing this litigation. It would be reasonable to expect the Applicants to have evidenced why they have not done so, or evidenced why other routes were not reasonable.
36. Mr Brown submitted that it was rational and open to the Respondent to consider the history of the applications and the Applicants’ continued insistence on travelling through the United Kingdom rather than using an alternative route to take up their employment in Guyana. That is not an allegation of inactivity, but one of unexplained determination to only travel via this route, without any express reason for doing so. Mr Brown did acknowledge the tension in the Respondent relying on the delay in taking up employment in circumstances where much of that was pursuant to decisions she recognised were unsustainable and withdrew; but submitted that in any event considering the up to date position for the Applicants was legitimate and noted that there was no ground of challenge by the Applicants that this was a matter which was immaterial and should not have been considered.
Discussion and conclusion on Ground 1
37. There is no dispute in this application that the burden is on the Applicants to establish that they are genuine direct airside transfer visitors and that further to the guidance, one factor to consider in making that assessment is the reasonableness of the proposed route through the United Kingdom.
38. The original applications for a DATV did not include any reference at all to the reasons for the proposed route to be taken by the Applicants or why it was reasonable for this to be via the United Kingdom. The application form itself does not ask any specific questions about this, however a cover letter was also submitted with every application which set out a range of information on matters relevant to the application but nothing as to the route; which was simply set out in an itinerary. The proposed route was via London Heathrow. No cost or total duration of the trip was shown, although the flight durations and gaps between them show a journey of some 34 hours.
39. The further representations as to route were in summary, (i) London is a global hub meaning it is often necessary to transit through London for journeys with historical connections to the United Kingdom (albeit other such hubs exist, such as JFK airport in New York); (ii) the cheapest flight option on an arbitrary date would be to fly via JFK, but this may cause difficulties in applying for a US C-1 transit visa and would take over 50 hours; (iii) the Applicants could reduce the journey time by around 10 hours by flying via London Gatwick and the time saving would make sense to take such a route; and (iv) prices are highly variable and may not on their face include the same baggage allowance.
40. The example flights searches included with the representations show a number of route options for a round trip (which is unexplained given the Applicants’ intention was to travel to Guyana for a contracted employment period of three years and not that return flights were necessary – a point which appears to increase the cost significantly for any journey) which vary in price from as low as £1776 to as high as nearly £10,000 (albeit many are in the range up to £2,400) and duration, between just over 31.5 hours up to over 50 hours. Amongst the flight options, only one routed through the United Kingdom via Gatwick airport for which a DATV is not practically available as they have no airside transit facilities (although the itinerary also submitted was for a route via Heathrow, with no cost information and a duration of around 31.5 hours, this was not referred to expressly in the submissions). The route options otherwise transited through a variety of countries, including the United States and Canada, with one route going via Istanbul, Bogota and Panama city.
41. In the context of the original application and the further representations, there is no clear statement by or on behalf of any of the Applicants as to why the journey transiting through the United Kingdom specifically is a reasonable one. The suggestion that it may be necessary for such travel from Bangladesh to Guyana is not borne out by the other options. The suggestion that a route via Gatwick would make sense as it is shorter is not practically available to take with a DATV. The suggestion that there may be difficulties with applying for a US C-1 transit visa is not explained as to what difficulties this would (or even may) cause and in any event there are other routes which do not require transit through either the United Kingdom or the United States and no suggestion that those countries require a visa or that it could not be obtained. There is a reference to baggage allowances but no details are given as to any differences in what is available or the cost of any such baggage allowance required to differentiate between any particular route or to demonstrate that the route via the United Kingdom is reasonable. What remains within the submissions is evidence of a variety of options for travel within a range of prices (which vary) and within a range of journey times; with no express reason as to why the one via the United Kingdom is reasonable.
42. In the Respondent’s reasons for refusal, there is express reference to all of the points in the submissions, save for in relation to baggage allowance (the omission of which has not been relied upon specifically by the Applicants). The reasons include a statement that there are alternative routes available which do not require transit through the United Kingdom and a number are quicker and/or less expensive. That statement is entirely consistent with the representations made on behalf of the Applicants and the evidence submitted with them and with a search conducted by the decision-maker which showed at least one quicker journey and one cheaper journey. Further there is an acknowledgment of price variations.
43. The Applicants take issue specifically not with the conclusion that there are cheaper and/or quicker journeys available (their own representations show that to be the case), but with the ultimate conclusion that numerous alternative routes have always been available, which if taken, would have enabled the Applicants to take up employment in Guyana much sooner. The Applicants’ case is that there is no evidential basis for that assertion (which is required given it is the Respondent who has positively asserted this) and it is not a logical or rational conclusion in any event.
44. However, in the absence of any representations or evidence from the Applicants that alternative routes could not have been taken, for example because it was not possible to obtain a required visa, or a required visa was significantly more expensive, or flights were significantly more expensive or the route took a significantly longer time to complete; it was lawfully open to the Respondent to consider that there was an alternative available as opposed to insisting on a route which transited through the United Kingdom and further that the failure to do so over a significant period of time led to a doubt as to the purpose of the travel and whether it was genuine.
45. That was a logical and rational conclusion both in the context of representations which were made (which failed to suggest otherwise when it would have been reasonable to expect that if that were the case, the Applicants would have easily been able to demonstrate this) and in the economic context of a bona fides employer otherwise restricted by a local labour shortage in filling the vacancies offered to the Applicants and the Applicants themselves being offered employment which it can be inferred was better paid than that available locally in Bangladesh (otherwise there is no reason why 20 individuals would travel so far across the world for employment).
46. In accordance with the guidance, the Applicants did not and do not need to show that the proposed route transiting through the United Kingdom is the only reasonable one for them to make; nor that other alternatives are not available or are unreasonable; but the burden remains on them to show it is a reasonable route and there is virtually nothing that positively makes that case for them; despite an express opportunity being given to address the Respondent’s concern that it was not a reasonable one. On its face, a journey from east to west that passes through the United Kingdom is not eminently unreasonable, but that does not necessarily mean that it is inevitably a reasonable one, particularly in the face of a variety of alternatives.
47. The fact that the circumstances of delay have arisen due to the Respondent’s prior conduct in assessing these applications is somewhat unattractive for the Respondent to rely on as part of the reasons for refusal; however, there is no dispute that it was open to her to consider all of the circumstances known at the date of the decisions under challenge and it is stark that the Applicants have not offered any explanation for simply not seeking to travel via a different route to take up their employment sooner.
48. When considered in the round and in the context set out above, the Respondent’s decisions were in accordance with the guidance and were entirely rational and lawful. The threshold for a rationality challenge is a high one which the Applicants have not come close to meeting to show that no reasonable decision-maker could have refused their applications for the reasons given. The first ground of challenge is therefore dismissed.
Ground 2 – Failure to have regard to relevant evidence and/or irrationality
49. The second ground of challenge relates only to 18 of the 20 Applicants and the additional reason for refusal given in their cases concerning discrepancies in their financial circumstances and as to their credibility. The challenge is that the Respondent failed to take into account the detailed written submissions made on the Applicants’ behalf, supported by background evidence, as to the use of the banking system in Bangladesh to explain the large cash deposits and at best, only retrospective reasons were given to reject those reasons in the course of this application for Judicial Review. Such reasons should be treated with caution and in any event, go more to the materiality of the error rather than whether there was a failure to consider the written submissions at all. The Applicants’ case is, in any event, that the retrospective reasons given were themselves not legally or rationally sustainable given the deposits in the Applicants’ accounts did not logically relate to any of the issues relevant to whether they were genuine direct airside transit visitors in circumstances where they intend to travel on to Guyana for work and where the cost of their travel had been met such that they did not need to show available funds or economic ties to Bangladesh for their applications.
50. At the hearing, Mr Lewis again relied on the written ground of challenge and his skeleton argument, with additional oral submissions. He emphasised the submission that the generic information about use of the banking system in Bangladesh was consistent with the Applicants’ large deposits in their accounts just before their applications and further suggested that these may have been prompted by the need for them to have access to funds in a bank account before leaving Bangladesh to take up work in Guyana. In any event, the Applicants were not required to explain the deposits in circumstances where there was no concern as the genuineness of the offers of employment or intention to take them up and where their personal finances were irrelevant to their application for a DATV.
51. The Respondent’s case in relation to the second ground of appeal is, in essence, that the Respondent (i) was entitled to take into account the Applicants’ financial circumstances as part of the overall assessment of their credibility; (ii) was entitled to take into account the discrepancies which were not individually explained by any of the Applicants, nor by the generic submissions about Bangladeshi banking practices which did not address the concerns raised nor alleviate them in any way; (iii) had taken into account the written representations in any event as there was express reference to them by date of the email in each decision letter; and, in any event, (iv) the Respondent would have inevitably come to the same conclusion in relation to financial discrepancies and credibility given that the generic submissions made could not rationally have attracted any significant weight, if at all. Further, the decisions would have also been refused for the other reasons set out in the refusal decisions.
52. At the oral hearing, Mr Brown again relied on the Detailed Grounds of Defence and his skeleton argument; with additional oral submission on made on the second ground. He emphasised that the Respondent’s concerns set out in the reasons for refusal on credibility grounds were that there was a significant discrepancy between the Applicants’ claimed financial circumstances and large deposits in their bank accounts (not that the deposits did not match a regular claimed income being paid in to their bank account). The generic submissions as to underutilisation of the banking system and primary use of cash in Bangladesh does not in any way address the reasons for the discrepancies. The Applicants had an express opportunity to make representations, including in relation to concerns raised about the financial discrepancies and they simply failed to use that or provide any individual explanation or response. In these circumstances, it was entirely legitimate for the Respondent to take into account the discrepancies and find that these harmed the Applicants’ credibility, even if there was no specific financial requirement for the DATV applications.
Discussion and conclusion on Ground 2
53. There is no dispute in this case that the reasons for refusal do not expressly set out any of the written representations made on behalf of the Applicants as to their financial circumstances or the banking system in Bangladesh; however that does not necessarily mean that these have not been taken into account as it is not necessary for each and every point raised to be expressly addressed in the reasons for refusal.
54. The decision letters do all make express reference to written representations having been made on the Applicants’ behalf by their solicitors on 14 January 2025 by email. It is not therefore in doubt that those representations were received and the reference to them supports a conclusion that they were therefore taken into account. It is noted that the representations also made a number of other points in favour of the Applicants’ applications as to the genuineness of employment, the labour market and shortages in Guyana, as well as cultural links between Guyana and Bangladesh; none of which were expressly referred to in the decision letters either and no complaint was made as to those matters not being expressly referred to.
55. The submissions themselves were generic as to the underutilisation of banks in Bangladesh but fail to explain the relevance of this to any of the Applicants individually – for example, there are no individual representations or statements as to individual use of a bank account historically or otherwise. The Applicants are already within the 50% of those who have a bank account at all (even less for those with lower-incomes where only 15% have a bank account) and the evidence relied upon shows limited use for those who have accounts.
56. I reject Mr Lewis’ submission that the evidence relied upon was consistent with the Applicants’ use of their bank accounts and relevant to the assessment of discrepancies in their claimed financial circumstances. At its highest, the generic submissions state that the presence of large cash deposits and a small amount of activity in a bank account should not be taken as a credibility point against the Applicants. First, the evidence cited before that does not in any way establish any basis for that statement as none of it makes any reference at all to large deposits. Secondly, the Respondent’s concern was not large deposits with a small amount of activity; but the discrepancy between the Applicants’ claimed income and large deposits within a short period of time significantly in excess of that claimed income. The submissions therefore do not address at all the issue raised even on a generic basis. If the Applicants did have a reason for the large deposits, as suggested by Mr Lewis in oral submissions that they may need access to funds in a bank account from Guyana, it was not a reason that was ever communicated to or before the Respondent at the time of the decision. If there was such a rational or simple explanation, it would be reasonable to expect it to have been given by the Applicants with their representations in January 2025.
57. In this context, it was wholly unnecessary for the Respondent to refer specifically to submissions which (i) were entirely generic; (ii) were not supported by the evidence referred to as to the banking system for the proposition made; and (iii) offered no explanation at all for the discrepancies in financial circumstances either generally nor in relation to any specific Applicant or transactions.
58. The Respondent was clearly aware of and had taken into account the written representations made as they were referred to in broad terms. In these circumstances, there is no public law error in the Respondent failing to refer specifically to written representations which could not have rationally have had any positive weight attached to them in the Applicants’ favour and did not need to be addressed expressly as they did not actually go to the issue the Applicants’ were on notice of.
59. There is also no public law error in the Respondent taking into account the Applicants’ finances at all within the reasons for refusal; even in the absence of any specific requirement for the issue of a DATV on financial grounds (contrary to, for example, an application for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as a visitor, where financial ties to a persons’ home country are readily accepted to be relevant to the question of whether a person is a genuine visitor and will return home at the end of their visit). Whether a person’s claimed circumstances are consistent with the evidence they rely on in their application is a relevant matter for the assessment of credibility.
60. The relevant guidance expressly identifies as a factor to consider the genuineness of the application, the credibility of the application as a whole, including as to the applicant’s circumstances. In the absence of any explanation as to significant discrepancies despite the express opportunity to address the concerns, the Respondent was lawfully and rationally entitled to consider the Applicants’ credibility as being damaged because she was not satisfied that their financial circumstances were as declared. It matters not that there was no specific financial requirement in the context of these applications, the discrepancy itself was relevant to the general consideration of credibility.
61. For these reasons, there is no error in the Respondent’s decisions on the second ground of challenge.
Conclusion
62. For the reasons given above, there were no public law errors in any of the Respondent’s decisions in respect of any of the 20 named Applicants. This application for Judicial Review is dismissed on all grounds.
~~~~0~~~~