The case of R (Khan) v SSHD (Dishonesty, Tax Return, Paragraph 322(5)) [2018] UKUT 384 (IAC) (3 May 2018) is worth to have a look at. It set out principles that Secretary of State failed to consider when deciding on applications made by Tier 1 migrants.
In Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan [1995] UKPC 4 Lord Nicholls said that “carelessness is not dishonesty” and thus the refusal was arguably irrational and unlawful. The Supreme Court approved of this statement in Ivey v Genting Casino [2017] UKSC 67.
The Tribunal noted that in response to the applicant’s reliance on the decision in Sagar Arun Samant [2017] UKAITUR JR65462016 (discussed here), the Home Office produced a list of cases where applicants had “jumped on the band wagon” but the Tribunal had rejected any evidence blaming the accountants. Very clear examples of this point were found in Kamal [2017] UKAITUR JR114172016, Parveen and Saleem [2017] UKAITUR JR94402016 and other cases.
