No “near miss” principle in immigration cases, despite Article 8

14 March 2012 by

The Court of Appeal has ruled that there is no “near miss” principle in the application of the Immigration Rules. People who miss the five years’ continuous residence requirement – even if by two weeks – will not have met the rules. There is no exception.

Mr Miah’s application for further leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) migrant was refused by the Home Secretary. As was his application under Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the application of his wife and child to be his dependents. His appeal to the First Tier Tribunal was unsuccessful, as was his appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Permission to go to the Court of Appeal was granted so that the “Near Miss” argument could be considered. Lord Justice Stanley Burnton explained the argument:

the argument is that where an appellant misses satisfying the requirements of the Immigration Rules by a small margin, and contends that his removal from the UK will breach his rights under Article 8, the weight to be given to the maintenance of immigration controls should be diminished for the purpose of the assessment as to whether his removal form this country should be permitted under Article 8(2).

The question then is: should there be laxity in the application of the immigration rules when they are not adhered to by a small margin and there is a valid Article 8 claim?


In July 2005 Mr Miah, a citizen of Bangladesh, was granted entry clearance as a work permit holder until July 2010. He arrived in Britain in September 2005. In July 2010 he applied for further leave to remain as a Tier 2 (General) migrant – three days before his work permit expired. His leave to remain was valid while his application was pending, under section 3C of Immigration Act 1971.

He lost both of his tribunal appeals: as he had arrived in Britain in September 2005 he was two months short of the five years’ continuous residence.

Court of Appeal

The argument for Mr Miah was that, “the more the applicant effects substantial compliance with the Rules, the less it can be said that immigration policy requires his removal.” As Burnton LJ said, this is not a “near miss” argument but a sliding scale argument.

The Home Secretary’s argument was that rules are rules and public interest requires them to be complied with.

It was made clear by the court that this was not the de minimis rule: if a departure from a rule is so small as to be insignificant it will not be a breach of the rule. Rather, this is about non compliance with the Rules.

Lord Bingham’s dicta from Huang was quoted with approval: “rules, to be administratively workable, require a line to be drawn somewhere.” His dicta about the damage that is done to a system by porous rules was also quoted.

And that is the heart of this issue. It is about the rule of law. Making exceptions for people is an unfair administration of justice. Why should someone who misses the rules by three weeks not be allowed to remain, but someone who missed by two get leave to remain? If the rules require five years then a strict application must be adhered to in order that people are treated equitably.

The argument made on behalf of Mr Miah is an aberration of legal positivism. The law is arbitrary be definition: it draws lines. The more exceptions we make for people the less we obey the rule of law, which Richard Epstein describes as, “the free and fair application of general principles without bias or exception.”

If I do not fulfil the terms of a contract I am in breach – maybe only by a small margin (which would reduce damages) but breach none the less. If I do not meet the five year requirements I cannot get leave to remain. As Carnworth LJ said in Rudi:

the law knows no “near-miss” principle. There is no presumption that those falling just outside the policy should be treated as though they were within it, or given special consideration for that reason.

The conclusion of the court was that “a rule is a rule”. If we do not like the rules we must follow Bentham – obey immediately, protest ceaselessly.

This guest post by Henry Oliver first appeared on the Mulberry Finch blog and is reproduced here with permission and thanks

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;

  1. John Jolliffe says:

    Bye bye Pankina. Hello legal certainty.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: