Many migrants in the UK hold work visas, with their immigration status heavily reliant on their employer’s sponsorship eligibility. If an employer’s sponsor licence is revoked, affected employees have limited time to address their immigration status, creating significant uncertainty. Protecting their rights and interests in such situations is a matter of widespread concern.
The case we’re discussing today, Tammina and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD), serves as a crucial example for migrants facing sponsorship-related issues and explores the boundaries of procedural fairness in immigration law.
Background of Tammina v SSHD
Mr Rajasekhar Tammina, the appellant, arrived in the UK in 2008, holding various visas, including a Tier 2 (General) work visa sponsored by Ratna Marble and Granites. His wife, Vinoda, held leave as a dependent of his Tier 2 visa.
On March 1, 2017, the appellant applied for a Tier 2 visa extension, but a Home Office compliance visit in June questioned his job’s authenticity and whether it met the necessary occupational standards. As a result, Mr. Tammina’s extension application was refused on July 20, 2017, and his employment ended.
While Mr. Tammina pursued a judicial review of the refusal decision, the SSHD suspended Ratna’s sponsorship licence on October 20, 2017, and later revoked it on December 22, 2017. However, Mr. Tammina was not informed of this revocation until February 8, 2018, when the SSHD reconsidered and ultimately refused his application on the basis that his COS had been invalidated.
Challenging this decision, Mr. Tammina argued that the SSHD’s failure to notify him of the revocation deprived him of the opportunity to take remedial action, such as finding a new sponsor, citing R (Pathan) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 41(“Pathan”).
Court Judgment on Tammina v SSHD
The Court mainly assessed whether the SSHD’s failure to promptly notify Mr. Tammina of his employer’s licence revocation constituted procedural unfairness.
The Appellant raised many grounds of appeals, some of which were heard in closed hearing and others in open hearing.
The Court held the following in relation to some of the arguments presented by claimants:
- Procedural Unfairness
The court examined whether the SSHD’s decision making process was unfair. The appellants argued that the SSHD’s decision-making process was unfair because Mr. Tammina was not informed of his sponsor’s licence revocation before his application was refused. This deprived him of a chance to seek an alternative sponsor. The SSHD disagreed and maintained that Mr. Tammina had ample time to address his situation and find an alternative solution.
The court emphasized that procedural fairness requires the Secretary of State to inform an applicant of their sponsor’s licence revocation promptly, but this requirement may be mitigated if the applicant already has prior knowledge of the issues.
- Reliance on Pathan Precedent
The appellants argue that their case was identical to Pathan precedent, where the Supreme Court ruled that failing to notify an applicant of their sponsor’s revocation was unfair and placed them at a disadvantage. The SSHD argued that Mr. Tammina’s case was different from Pathan because he was aware of the issues surrounding his sponsor’s compliance before the licence was revoked. Unlike in Pathan, Mr. Tammina knew that his employer’s licence had been suspended, and he had discussed the issue with his employer. Thus, he was not taken by surprise.
The court stated that Mr. Tammina had prior knowledge of the investigation into the sponsor licence and had the chance to take proactive steps, especially when the revocation was partly based on concerns about Mr. Tammina’s role, meaning he was not an innocent bystander but involved in the circumstances that led to the decision.
Consequently, the court distinguished between Pathan and the present case, concluding that there was no obligation on the SSHD to notify appellants of the revocation under these circumstances.
The tribunal finally held, among other things, that Mr. Tammina was not treated unfairly by the SSHD. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Our comments
This case emphasises the principle that procedural fairness is highly context dependent. Procedural fairness is not an absolute right but rather one that must be assessed based on circumstances. While Pathan set an important legal precedent, it does not apply universally to all sponsorship revocation cases. Prior knowledge of an employer’s compliance issues can mitigate the need for immediate notification.
The judgment signals the responsibility of visa holders to remain informed about their employer’s compliance status and to seek alternative options promptly. While the Home Office would not be obligated to notify every affected employee when a sponsor loses its licence if the employee was aware of prior compliance concerns, employers and sponsored employees should keep transparent also communication about compliance risks.
Whether you are a sponsor employer or a sponsored employee, should you need any advice on monitoring the sponsor’s status and planning contingencies, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa’s law Immigration team. Our experienced team would be happy to assist you.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
