Sponsor licence revocation and ‘genuine roles’ (Prestige Social Care)
Immigration analysis: In R (on the application of) Prestige Social Care Services Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘Prestige Social Care Services Ltd’), the High Court considers, for the first time in a fully reasoned judgment applying the post 2024 Sponsor Guidance, whether Annex C1 Ground (z) (‘non genuine roles’) always requires dishonesty or other reprehensible conduct, and how that ground interacts with Annex C2(a)–0(b), C1.44 (‘genuine vacancy’) and section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981). His Honour Judge Tindal holds that the examples of non genuine roles in Ground (z) and paras C1.46–C1.47 do entail dishonesty or other reprehensible conduct and so attract the Balajigari v SSHD/Prestwick Care Ltd v SSHD fairness safeguards, but that outside those examples, UKVI can treat a role as non genuine where, focusing on the vacancy rather than the worker, it lacks one or more of the C1.44 characteristics, even without dishonesty, subject to ordinary public law fairness para [55]. The court finds the Home Office’s reliance on Ground (z) irrational on the specific facts (Ms K’s inability to drive), but upholds revocation under Annex C2(a) and (b) and refuses relief under SCA 1981, s 31(2A), applying the Court of Appeal’s approach in R (Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons NPA and R (Gathercole) v Suffolk CC [90]–[98]. The claim is dismissed, permission to appeal refused and costs of £18,000 awarded to the Secretary of State paras [99]–[100]. Written by Nazib Ullah, partner at Internations Legal LLP.