IA197242013

This is an appeal by a citizen of India against a decision of the respondent on 6 June 2013. The appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal. It comes before me because it was found to be arguably wrong in law.

I have considerable sympathy for the Immigration Officer and the First-tier Tribunal Judge because this is a case arises from that potentially confusing part of the rules concerning the cancellation and/or curtailment of leave and reasons for such a decision such as a change of circumstance or behaving in a way not in accordance with the permission granted. I am being deliberately vague because I want to save the precision for when I come to deal with the case actually before me.

I have been shown a decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department and Daniel Owusu Boahen [2010] EWCA Civ 555 where Thomas LJ, as he then was, said, having commented on the clarity of the judgment of Lord Justice Pitchford in explaining these Rules, that:

�The complexity of the task that he has undertaken demonstrates, if further demonstration was needed, the urgent need to simplify and write in plain English the relevant Regulations and other provisions. It cannot be right that officials of the UK Border Agency are required to try and understand and make sense of provisions that are so arcane and poorly drafted.�

Although there have been many changes to the rules since Thomas LJ made this criticism in 2010 but this part of the rule is no clearer. They are confusing. Experienced lawyers approach them carefully and, understandably, Immigration Officers can easily err.