Post on 26-Jan-2023
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
Immigration Law
Essay Title:
“...Benefits will accrue from the new points based system not just because of who it allows in, but also because of how those people are selected. Particularly important in this context are the principles that the new system should be clearand user-friendly, and based on objective and transparent criteria. These are the principles behind using a points-basedsystem for structured decision-making...”
Paragraph 40 Cm 67, A Points-based System: Making Migration Work for Britain (March 2006)
Critically discuss with reference to the UK points-based system.
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
INTRODUCTION
Every state has the right to exercise legitimate and
discretionary control over immigration. This, according to
Wellman, is a central element of a state’s sovereignty and one
component of the self-determination, which is owed to all
individuals and legitimate states.1
The last fifteen years saw the UK experience major
developments in UK migration law and policies. This essay
seeks to critically analyse the UK Immigration Points Based
System in relation to its anchor principles of clarity, user-
friendliness, objectivity and transparency in making
structured decisions. It argues that, while this new system
appears to meet its objectives of modernizing the previous
system of attracting highly skilled applicants to the UK, it
has been compromised and weakened by the predominance of
short-term aims, frequent amendments, a preference for
1 Wellman, Christopher Heath. "Immigration and Freedom of Association" Ethics 119.1 (2008): 109-141.
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
administrative convenience over fairness and for control over
flexibility.2
It is unarguably accepted that to understand the need for a
new thing, one must first understand the old and why it is no
longer required or/and why it is due for a revamp or a total
overhaul.
Below are the six developmental phases from 1997-2010 in a bid
to controlling the migration of labour to the UK:3
1997-2000: This period saw a change in political thinking
about immigration. In particular, it now felt that immigration
could have potential positive economic benefits for the UK.
2000-2004: This period was underpinned by five themes: meeting
labour/skills shortages; encouraging innovation and
entrepreneurialism; expanding the UK’s share of the Higher and
Further Education international student market; developing a
self-financing system; and establishing a more rigorous system
of control. The HSMP was introduced in January 2002 to be the
2 Wray, Helena E. "The points based system: a blunt instrument?" Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law 23.3 (2009): 231-251.3 Edited by Duran Seddon, JCWI, Guide to the Points-Based System, Joint Council forthe Welfare of Immigrants 2011, pg 1-2
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
flagship of the Government's managed migration policy.
Overseas nationals could enter the UK to work under the Work
Permit Scheme, administered by the Work Permits (UK). The work
permit application is made by a UK employer who must convince
WP (UK): that a genuine job vacancy exits; there is no
suitable EEA national to do the job; the overseas national is
suitably qualified and experienced for the job; and the job
requires a certain level of skills.4
2005 – 2008: The influx of Eastern Europeans into the UK and
negative media coverage of immigration were key factors that
shaped labour migration policy. It was during this period that
the Government introduced a blue-print for a ‘points-based’
system, together with new control mechanisms.
2008-2009: This period saw the launch and implementation of
the Points-Based System. This development was inspired by the
earlier phases and drew heavily from the preceding innovation.
2009-2010: This phase revealed the possibility that the PBS
had drafting oversights. It was a period of fine-tuning,
4 Laura Devine, ‘Is the new highly skilled migrant programme “fit for purpose”?’ JIANL, 2007, 21(2), 90-108
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
tightening and extending the PBS. Modifications were made to
the system in order to correct unforeseen consequences.
2010-Present: Further amendments and statement of changes to
the PBS; Integration of policy guidance and the immigration
rules.5 6 7
THE POINTS BASED SYSTEM
The Points Based System (“PBS”) introduced in 2008 was based
on an Australian-style points system and was the biggest
immigration shakeup for 40 years. Its purpose was to create a
clearer system, consolidating more than 80 immigration work
and study categories into five tiers. The idea was to
introduce objective criteria to streamline decision-making,
making it fairer by removing tests of intention and
credibility. The PBS also introduced self-assessment to enable
applicants to identify whether they met the relevant tier
criteria.8
5 Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, Cm 8423, Published 19 July 2012 following the case of Alvi v SSHD6 New Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 565 7 Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 11388 Damir Duheric, Employment and immigration: the points based system three years on..., Employment Law Bulletin, 2012, (1)
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
The PBS was introduced as a major part of the Home Office’s
‘simplification’ project. In order words it was rolled out to:9
- Allow the Home Office to have greater control over the
numbers migrants coming to work and study in the UK,
- To devolve much of the work involved in monitoring
migrants workers and students in the UK to their
employers and education providers, and
- To make the decision-making process easier for Home
Office staff by setting very precisely the requirements
that need to be met and the documents that can be
provided to evidence those requirements.
This new system was meant to favour well in comparison to the
then current complex immigration scheme, which had grown up
over many years with its myriad of immigration categories
layered with concessions, discretions and subjective decision-
making.10 Whilst undoubtedly there is room for improvement in
the current immigration system, it can equally be argued that
many of its perceived complexities are the necessities of a
9 JCWI Training Manual, OISC 1/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2014 10 Laura Devine, “Not So Good Migrations: The New UK Points Based System Has Poor Vibrations for Immigration”, International Law Commentary Emerging Issues 4825 (2010)
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
finely calibrated system; one that has evolved and been fine-
tuned over many years, enabling it to address a diverse range
of circumstances and resulting in a well-honed, sophisticated
instrument for assessing entry to the UK.11
Underpinning the new migration system was a five-tier
framework, each of which was divided into a number of
categories:12
Tier 1 - is the only part of the regime which does not require
applicants to be sponsored either by an employer or an
education provider. It has six subcategories: Investor,
Entrepreneur, Graduate Entrepreneur, Exceptional Talent,
General (closed to new applicants) and Post-Study Work (also
closed to new applicants).
Tier 2 - for skilled workers sponsored by employers holding a
Tier 2 sponsor licence issued by the Home Office to come to
the UK either in order to fill a job for which no suitable
employee is available from the resident labour market (Tier 2
(General)), or for people already working for a company
outside the European Economic Area who are required to join
11 Ibid n412 http://www.gherson.com/immigration/ <assessed 14-04-14>
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
their employer's UK office on a temporary basis (Tier 2 (Intra
Company Transfer)). Additionally, Tier 2 has separate
subcategories for Ministers of Religion and for Sportspeople.
Tier 3 - this Tier, which was intended for unskilled workers,
has never been operational since the implementation of the
Points-Based System and seems likely to remain closed.
Tier 4 - for those wishing to study in the UK. Tier 4
(General) and Tier 4 (Child) Students have to be sponsored by
a college or a school (in the case of Tier 4 (Child) Students)
which has been granted a Tier 4 sponsor licence by the Home
Office.
Tier 5 - which has two subcategories: Tier 5 (Youth Mobility),
enabling young people from Australia, Canada, Japan, New
Zealand, Monaco and Taiwan to live and work in the UK for a
period of two years, and Tier 5 (Temporary Workers), for those
sponsored by licensed UK employers to come to the UK on a
temporary basis.
The PBS is provided for in the Part 6A and in various
Appendices of the Immigration Rules13. Each category within the
13 Immigration Rules: Part 6A [last amended 6 April 2014]
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
PBS also has its own Policy Guidance which supplements the
information provided for in the rules. The three main
appendices are: A: Attributes, B: English and C: Maintenance.
Part 6A outlines how an applicant can accrue the necessary
number of points. Under some of the PBS routes, there is only
one way to accrue the requisite number of points.14 Also to be
found in Part 6A are switching rules, the period of leave to
be granted and various other requirements an applicant is
required to meet should they intend to extend their leave or
settle in the UK.
The requirements for each of the tiers are very wide and
complex, as such, for the purpose of this essay, only caselaw
pertaining to Tier-1, 2 and 4 will be examined and used for
illustration.
PROPOSED BENEFITS AND SELECTION PROCESS
The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was set up by the
Government in 2007 as an independent non-departmental public
body to provide evidence-based advice to the Government on
where shortages of skilled labour can sensibly be filled by
14 JCWI Training Manual, OISC 2/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2013
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
immigration from outside the European Economic Area (EEA). The
MAC also advises the Government on other immigration issues
from time to time.15 Prior to this, the then Home Secretary
Charles Clarke set out the Government's proposed immigration
plan to introduce a ‘clear and modern points system’ in a
Command Paper in February 2005. It consisted of a five-year
plan setting out changes in the immigration law, which he, at
the time termed ‘outdated and confusing’.16 However, in July
200517, a consultation was held to examine how applicants would
be admitted selectively in order to maximise the economic
benefit of migration to the UK.” This showed a slight
variation with regards to the main purpose of the Points-Based
System. It now appears that the core of the proposed PBS was
‘economic and international ‘competiveness’ and ‘control’.18 It
is worth arguing that the Government had more in mind with the
Points-Based System and it is not surprising that there are
current consultations being held in relation to extending this
15 Migration Advisory Committee Report, ‘Skilled Shortage Sensible – Review of Methodology’ March 201016 Home Office, Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain- Five year strategy for asylum and immigration Cm 6472, February 2005 pp 5-6.17 Home Office, Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain, July 200518 Home Office A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work for Britain Cm 6741, March 2006, p 12.
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
system to all areas of the UK immigration law, especially
citizenship.
In response to the Home Office consultation paper entitled,
‘Earning the right to stay: A new points test for
citizenship’, JWCI argued against the introduction of a
points-based test for British citizenship/permanent residence.
In its view, there is no sound objective basis for its
introduction. We argue that it will ultimately lead to: (i) a
reduction of the UK’s ability to attract the skilled workers
it requires in order to remain competitive (ii) increased
insecurity for migrant workers, (iii) the generation of a pool
of undocumented workers, (iv) administrative inefficiency and
(v) inconsistency with the policy objective of facilitating
circular migration.
USER-FRIENDLINESS
According to a Home Office Research on users’ views of the
Points- Based System19, it would appear that a high percentage
of users found the PBS to be more user-friendly. However, it
is worth noting that, at onset, some Home Office staff felt19 Home Office, Research Report 22 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 2009
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
they had not received enough training and resources to
implement the PBS effectively.20
Since the PBS came into operation, applicants and legal
advisers have been continually frustrated by refusals of
applications that seem, in the eyes, to be based on technical
and bureaucratic grounds. The PBS has been drawn up in such a
way as to eradicate discretion, uncertainty and areas for
dispute on appeal; it also removes judgement and common sense
from the system.21 There have been cases where applicants are
thrown into bewilderment because the reason given for refusal
was so minute. For example, an applicant who may well be
perfectly able to maintain and accommodate themselves and
their dependants without recourse to public funds (and would
previously have been found to be so able), may now be refused,
not because they cannot, but because they have not ticked the
required boxes.22
Further frustration experienced by users of the PBS is the
frequent roll-out of a new version of the PBS application
20 Home Office, Research Report 49 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 201121 Ibid n2, pg 41222 ibid
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
forms. In Pengiliang v SSHD23, the appellant got into trouble
because he had failed to submit an application in the proper
form. Judge MItting noted the following:
I would not however wish to leave this case, which
has not succeeded, without this observation. This
claimant has plainly satisfied the requirements of
the Immigration Rules throughout his stay up until
the moment that he made a mistake when submitting
his application on 29 May 2009. The error which he
made was a simple mistake. I do not know how it
occurred or why it occurred, but the Secretary of
State might, when reconsidering or considering any
application made by him in future, take into account
that but for a mistake, and nothing more than that,
the claimant would unquestionably have been entitled
to have been granted, and would have been granted,
leave to remain to pursue his course of studies.
In relation to the above, the Home Office has in place the
evidential flexibility process, where if there are minor
23 [2010] EWHC 2922 (Admin)
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
errors or omissions on specified documents submitted with a
valid application but there is enough evidence to show the
application would otherwise be granted, the caseworker may
contact the migrant, sponsor or representative as appropriate
for clarification or to request missing documents and/or
information.24 Not surprisingly, there have been several
versions of this policy, with the recent one in March 2014
stating the non-obligatory duties of the caseworker to contact
the applicant should there be an omission.
The appeal in the case of Rodriguez, initially decided by the
Upper tribunal in Rodriguez v SSHD25 and then on appeal by the
Secretary of State by the Court of Appeal, SSHD v Rodriguez26,
concerned the effect of the so called "Evidential Flexibility
Policy" in the applications for leave to remain under the
Points Based System. At the Upper Tribunal considered the
Court of Appeal decision in Alam and Others v SSHD27 which was
concerned with documentary evidence that was missing in the
application but was then made available at the First-Tier
Tribunal hearing. Also considered was a similar but different24 Home Office, Points-based system: evidential flexibility25 [2013] UKUT 00042(IAC)26 [2014] EWCA Civ 227 [2012] EWCA Civ 960
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
case – Shahzad28. This case is different in that the immigration
judge dismissed the appeal because he agreed with the
respondent that the documentation submitted with the
application in support was not sufficient and because he
declined to take account of additional evidence offered to him
because he found that he was precluded from doing so by s85A
of the 2002 Act, in its amended form.
The Court of Appeal overturned the much welcome decision of
the Upper Tribunal and ruled that Evidential Flexibility
Policy did not put the Secretary of State under any obligation
to make any additional enquiries. Those who failed to
support their applications with the required documentation had
no one to blame for it and the harsh consequences for the
Appellant did not outweigh the public interest of consistent
decision making.
The decision marks the end of Evidential Flexibility in PBSapplications.
OBJECTIVITY
At the kick-off of the Points-Based System, the functions of
Work Permit were outsources to ECOs abroad. Prior to this,
28 [2012] UKUT 81 (IAC)
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
there were growing concerns around the quality and objectivity
of ECO decision-making in that a high proportion of ECO
decision as at 2005 were incorrect, and up to 83 per cent of
refusals by ECO decisions in certain skilled based category
were overturned on appeal. 29
In its submission to the Home Affairs Committee30, ILPA stated
that it did not agree that the Points-Based System was fair,
transparent and objective. Under PBS, ECOs now decide who can
and who cannot come to the UK by reference to the evidence
which the individual is able to produce. The Immigration Rules
now require an applicant to provide ‘specified’
documentation.31 It (ILPA) further stated that the effect of
this was that rather than demonstrating that they meet an
attribute criterion, such as proving that they hold a degree,
the applicant must in fact prove that they hold a particular
type of document regarding that attribute. For instance, under
Tier 4 (General) applicant whose original degree certificate
has been misplaced and whose university does not issue
29 JCWI, The points-based system: Can it really make labour migration work for Britain? A Critique of the PBS, November 200630 ILPA, Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System, July 200831 Public Accounts Committee Report, Immigration: the Points Based System – Work Routes, 17 May 2011
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
duplicates will be refused a Tier 4 visa even if he produced
an original transcript of his degree results with an original
letter from his university which were accepted as genuine by
the ECO.
ILPA was not the only group who had concerns; in its report on
the PBS in July 2009, the Home Affairs Committee concluded
that:
Although objectivity is to be welcomed, measuring
skill by awarding points for criteria such as past
earnings or academic qualifications gives undue
priority to easily quantifiable attributes and
ignores ability or experience in a job. In
particular, the overemphasis on formal
qualifications at the expense of professional
experience or training is arbitrary and unfair.32
The recent introduction of ‘genuineness’ tests under Tiers
1(Entrepreneur), 2(Ministers of Religion) and 4(General) of
the Points-Based System has ended the Home Office’s reliance
on objective criteria for these routes. It leaves one32 Home Affairs Committee, Managing Migration: The Points Based System, 15 July 2009, HC 217-I, 2008-09
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
wondering if this represents the end of the PBS seeing that it
was these criteria which characterised the new system, and
justified the loss of appeal rights when it was introduced in
2008.33
On 23 May 2011, the Government commenced s19 of the UK Borders
Act 2007 which restricts the evidence upon which a person can
rely in an appeal against a Points-Based System decision.34 The
provision restricts evidence to one of four types: (i)
evidence that was presented at the time of making the refused
application;35 (ii) evidence that relates to any race
discrimination, human rights or asylum ground of appeal;
36(iii) evidence adduced to show that a document is genuine or
valid;37 and (iv) evidence that relates to a matter other than
the acquisition of ‘points’ under the Points-Based System.38
33 OISC Level 1 update, An Introduction to Immigration Law and Practice in the U.K.,JCWI,( March 2014) 10334 Steve Symonds, “Points-based system appeals and new evidence.” J.I.A.N.L. 2011, 25(3), 215-21635 Section 85A(4)(a), 2002 Act.36 Section 85A(4)(b), 2002 Act.37 Section 85A(4)(c), 2002 Act.38 Section 85A(4)(d), 2002 Act.
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
There are concerns that the pursuit of perceived ‘objectivity’
has become the driver of the Points-Based System, at the
expense of other important policy objectives.39
CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY
The landmark case of Pankina40 was one, which revealed the lack
of clarity and transparency of the Points-Based System. It was
significant in that it related to circumstances where Guidance
amounted to a ‘substantive criterion for eligibility for
admission or leave to remain. The decision in Pankina finds
Sedley LJ ruling that policy guidance does not have binding
effect on Courts in certain circumstances where it impacts on
the immigration rules. At para [28] states:
“A policy is precisely not a rule: it is required by law
to be applied without rigidity, and to be used and
adapted in the interests of fairness and good sense. To
take the present case, the policy guidance standing alone
would not only permit but require a decision-maker to
consider whether, say, a week's dip below the £800
balance during the three-month period mattered. This39 ILPA Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System para 11; 200840 [2010] EWCA Civ 719
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
would in turn require attention to be given to the object
of the policy, which is to gauge, by what is accepted on
all sides to be a very imprecise rule of thumb, whether
the applicant will be able to support him- or herself
without recourse to public funds. If that object was
sensibly met, the law might well require the policy to be
applied with sufficient flexibility to admit the
applicant, or would at least require consideration to be
given to doing so. But if the requirement is a rule – and
it is the Home Secretary's case that by incorporation it
becomes a rule – then there is no discretion and no
judgment to be exercised.”
Following the above, a number of judicial review cases
challenged previous refusal decisions based on the guidance.
In English UK v SSHD41, the challenge made was that the change in
the minimum level of English language tuition permitted ought
to have been introduced by a change to the Immigration Rules.
The court in this case deemed this requirement unlawful as it
had been introduced in amended UK Border Agency guidance
41 [2010] EWHC 1726
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
instead of being laid before Parliament under the negative
resolution procedure;
In JCWI v SSHD42, Sullivan LJ at [37] said:
“...the defendant's intention in laying HC 59 and HC 96
before Parliament was to change the Rules so as to give
her the power, not merely to determine the limits for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 and incorporate those limits into the
Rules by cross-reference to the UKBA website and PBS
Guidance in existence at the time, but also to be able
thereafter to alter them at will by making such
alterations to the website and/or the Guidance as she saw
fit.”
Following Pankina, the Home Office moved swiftly with Statement
of Changes43 to incorporate into the main Immigration Rules
some provisions that had previously featured only in the
policy guidance and which were deemed unlawful in the Pankina
and English UK cases.
42 [2010] EWHC 352443 HC 382
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
Further cases such as Alvi44 and New London College Ltd45 find the
Secretary of State using the guidance as a tool in refusing
the appellants. However, the courts overturned the decision in
these cases stating that any matter of substance used to
determine the outcome of an application had to be set out in
the Immigration Rules themselves in order to be valid.
It now seems clear that any provisions contained in the Policy
Guidance which impose a substantive criterion for eligibility
for admission or leave to remain must be subjected to
parliamentary scrutiny.46
CONCLUSION
It is opined that while the concept of a points-based system
has its virtues, the mannerism of implementation reveals that
it lacks flexibility, transparency and accountability47. The
pursuit of objectivity, however laudable, is perhaps destined
to be futile if it relies primarily on the formulation of
rules rather than intelligent decision-making.48
44 [2011]EWCA Civ 681; [2012] UKSC 33; [2012] 1 W.L.R.220845 [2012] EWCA Civ 51; [2012] Imm.A.R.56346 Joe Middleton, Turbulent times for the points based system, J.I.A.N.L. 2010, 24(4), 355-36347 Gina Clayton, Immigration and Asylum Law, (5th Edition, Oxford, 2012) 379
48 Ibid n2, para 241
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
In general, stakeholders are of the view that the Points-Based
System was rolled out in great haste. In so doing, the
Government missed and is still missing the opportunity to
design and implement the very best immigration system in the
world. ILPA members report a lack of confidence in the system
inferred from the constant flow of publications, changes,
amendments and corrections, which consequently is unsettling
for applicants and those advising them. 49
After seven years of introducing the PBS, it is arguable that
the complexities, vagaries and constant amendments to the rule
represent more than initial difficulties but reflects
fundamental problems with the ethos and structure of the PBS50,
which was supposed to be a model of simplicity and
transparency.51
49 Ibid n29, para 1950 Ibid n251 Ibid n6
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
RESEARCH NOTE
A research was done on what system was in place before theintroduction of the points based system. In this case,research results from both the Home Office, Immigration LegalAdvisers and Independent Bodies were used.
Difficulties encounter with topic: The Points-Based System isa fairly new system, as such, finding adequate materials tosubstantiate one’s line of argument was a bit difficult. Thetextbooks in the library were mostly outdated and thereforeirrelevant. This is simply due to the constant change inImmigration Rules for the PBS.
Another problem encountered was summarisation. The PointsBased System being a complex one had so many requirements andsub-requirements. It became problematic trying to compressthese information into a 3000 word essay without illustratingusing the requirements.
Academic materials were most helpful, even though it could beobserved from their contents that they too struggled withkeeping up to date with the changes. The sources of materialinclude:
JCWI, HJT, ILPA, Westlaw, Journal of Immigration and Asylumand Nationality Law and Textbooks from authors like IanMacdonald and Gina Clayton.
I went about the essay by focusing mainly on the principles asoutlined in the topic. That is, clarity, user-friendliness andtransparency of the PBS.
In my view, this essay might lack sufficient caselaw toillustrate the line of argument follow. This is not surprisingbecause the Home Office constantly locks up every loopholethat gave rise to a caselaw in favour of applicants. Forexample, the Home Office decided to implement changes to the
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
flexibility rule and Pankina case and this resulted in seriesof refusals afterwards.
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
REFERENCES
Books
Gina Clayton, Immigration and Asylum Law, 5th Edition,
Edited by Duran Seddon, JCWI, Guide to the Points-Based System, Joint Council for the
Welfare of Immigrants 2011, pg 1-2
OISC Level 1 update, An Introduction to Immigration Law and Practice in the U.K., JCWI, (March 2014) 103
JCWI Training Manual, OISC 2/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2013
JCWI Training Manual, OISC 1/IAAS 1 – Update, March 2014
CasesFu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2922 (Admin)
Rodriguez (flexibility policy) [2013] UKUT 00042(IAC)
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rodriguez [2014] EWCA Civ 2
Alam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 960
Shahzad (s.85A: commencement) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 81 (IAC)
Home Department v Pankina [2010] EWCA Civ 719
English UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of Statefor the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1726
R (on the application of JCWI) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3524
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
Alvl v SSHD [2011]EWCA Civ 681; [2012] UKSC 33; [2012] 1 W.L.R.2208
Regina (New London College Ltd) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 51; [2012] Imm.A.R.563
Journals
Middleton, J, Turbulent times for the points based system, J.I.A.N.L. 2010, 24(4), 355-363
Wray, H. E. "The points based system: a blunt instrument?." Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law 23.3 (2009): 231-251.
Symonds, S., “Points-based system appeals and new evidence.” J.I.A.N.L. 2011, 25(3), 215-216
Devine, L, ‘Is the new highly skilled migrant programme “fit for purpose”?’ JIANL, 2007, 21(2), 90-108
Duheric, D., Employment and immigration: the points based system three years on..., Employment Law Bulletin, 2012, pg1
Devine L., “Not So Good Migrations: The New UK Points Based System Has Poor Vibrations for Immigration”
International Law Commentary Emerging Issues 4825 (2010)
Wellman, C. H. "Immigration and Freedom of Association." Ethics 119.1 (2008): 109-141.
Website and Blogs
<http://www.gherson.com/immigration/> assessed 14 April 2014<http://www.freemovement.org.uk/ > assessed 20 April 2014
Papers
Adebayo Daniels Birkbeck College, University ofLondon ©2014
Migration Advisory Committee Report, ‘Skilled Shortage Sensible – Review of Methodology’ March 2010
Home Office, Controlling our borders: Making migration work for Britain- Five year strategy for asylum and immigration Cm 6472, February 2005 pp 5-6.
ILPA Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System para 11; 2008
Home Office, Research Report 22 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 2009
Home Office, Research Report 49 – Users’ views of the Points-Based System: January 2011
Home Office, Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain, July 2005
Home Office A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work for Britain Cm 6741, March 2006, p 12.
JCWI, The points-based system: Can it really make labour migration work for Britain? A Critique of the PBS, November 2006
Home Office, Points-based system: evidential flexibility
ILPA, Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Enquiry into Managed Migration: the Points Based System, July 2008
Public Accounts Committee Report, Immigration: the Points Based System – Work Routes, 17 May 2011
Home Affairs Committee, Managing Migration: The Points Based System, 15 July 2009, HC 217-I, 2008-09
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, Cm 8423, Published 19 July 2012
New Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 565 Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules, HC 1138