Read the judgment here.
A JR of the refusal of an application for ILR. The challenge was against the requirement for the C to produce forms P60 and P45 (or a suitable letter from HMRC) so as to evidence the asserted facts of his employment in the UK. It was argued that these were not required as pre Alvi.
Decided that this does not raise an issue comparable with Alvi. That case concerned requirements which a migrant had to satisfy as a condition of being given leave to enter or remain in the UK. The SSHD had effectively promulgated a substantive rule by introducing a list of skilled occupations. It was that list which governed the question whether the job was sufficiently highly skilled to attract the relevant number of points. Such a rule should have been put before Parliament.
Here, the substantive rule found in paragraph 134, concerned satisfaction of (among other things) the requirements of §128(iv). In R(Global Vision College Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 659 the CA made the point that the decision in Alvi does not require officials to take what they are told at face value. The SSHD was perfectly entitled to ask for evidence of the C’s work history and, when that evidence was not forthcoming, not to be satisfied about his compliance, with the inevitable result that his application had to be refused because of the terms of §135.