Understanding Dishonesty in Immigration Cases: The Balajigari Judgment
2019 Court of Appeal decision in Balajigari has fundamentally reshaped how the Home Office must approach allegations of dishonesty in UK immigration applications. This landmark ruling affects thousands of migrants on the pathway to settlement, particularly those who have progressed through the Tier 1 General, Tier 2 General, or Skilled Worker routes. For anyone applying for indefinite leave to remain or holding a sponsor licence, understanding this judgment is absolutely essential.
What Was Going Wrong Before Balajigari
The case centred on a practice that had become worryingly routine within the Home Office. Immigration officials had been comparing earnings declared to HMRC in tax returns with earnings stated in visa applications. When discrepancies appeared, even minor ones, the Home Office would refuse applications for indefinite leave to remain under paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules. This provision allows refusal when someone’s presence in the UK is deemed undesirable due to their conduct or character.
The real issue was not that the Home Office was checking for inconsistencies. That is entirely proper. The problem was what happened next. Officials would spot a discrepancy, conclude almost immediately that the applicant had been dishonest, and refuse the application without giving the person a proper chance to explain. Between January 2015 and May 2018, this approach led to 625 appeals to the tribunal and 388 judicial review applications. Strikingly, 65 per cent of appeals that reached a hearing were successful, suggesting something was going badly wrong with the decision making process.[para 6 of Balajigari decision]
What the Court Said About Dishonesty
The Court of Appeal made several critical findings that now guide how these cases must be handled. The judges emphasised that paragraph 322(5) should only be used when someone has genuinely acted dishonestly. Careless mistakes, accounting errors, or confusion about what expenses can be claimed do not meet this threshold. An error is not dishonest simply because it happened. There must be actual deception involved.
Lord Justice Underhill, giving the leading judgment, explained that the Home Office cannot simply jump from discovering a discrepancy to concluding dishonesty occurred. A discrepancy might justifiably raise suspicion, but suspicion is not the same as proof. The proper approach is to call for an explanation. If no explanation comes forward, or if the explanation offered is unconvincing, then it may become appropriate to infer dishonesty. Even then, the Home Office must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that dishonest conduct actually took place.
This is a serious finding with serious consequences. The Court recognised that an allegation of dishonesty carries significant weight. It affects not just the current application but potentially all future dealings with UK authorities. The standard of proof remains the civil standard of balance of probabilities, but the more serious the allegation, the more compelling the evidence must be.
The Procedural Fairness Requirement
Perhaps the most important practical outcome from Balajigari is the requirement for what is known as a “minded to refuse” procedure. The Court held that before refusing an application on grounds of alleged dishonesty, the Home Office must put their concerns to the applicant clearly. They must explain what discrepancy has been identified and give a proper opportunity for the person to respond.
This opportunity must come before the decision is made, not afterwards. The administrative review process that the Home Office had been relying on was found to be inadequate. Administrative review does not allow fresh evidence to be submitted in most cases. More fundamentally, if someone has not been told they are suspected of dishonesty, how can they be expected to have prepared a defence in their original application?
The Court was particularly critical of cases where applicants were interviewed but not explicitly told that dishonesty was being alleged. In the Kawos case (which is a part of the Balajigari decision) , for instance, the applicant was asked about discrepancies but without any clear warning that the Home Office suspected fraud. The Court found this unfair. Someone facing an accusation of dishonesty should not have to defend themselves on the spot without prior notice. They need time to gather evidence, consult advisers, and prepare a proper explanation.
Implications for Skilled Worker Visa Holders
For those currently holding a skilled worker visa and planning to apply for indefinite leave to remain, the Balajigari decision provides important protections but also carries warnings. The protection is clear: if there are innocent explanations for any discrepancies between your HMRC records and your visa applications, you must be given a fair chance to provide them.
Many discrepancies arise from genuine confusion about the complex rules. Self-employed individuals under the old Tier 1 General route often made honest mistakes about which business expenses could be deducted. Some filed tax returns without professional help and got the figures wrong. Others relied on accountants who made errors. These situations, whilst regrettable, are not necessarily dishonest.
The warning is equally clear. You cannot simply ignore discrepancies and hope they will not be noticed. The Home Office has access to HMRC data and routinely checks it against visa applications. If there are discrepancies in your records, it is far better to identify them early, understand why they occurred, and if necessary, correct them with HMRC before applying for settlement. The Balajigari judgment shows that correcting errors with HMRC does not automatically prove dishonesty, but nor does it automatically clear you. What matters is whether the original error was honest or deliberate.
What Sponsor Licence Holders Need to Know
Although Balajigari primarily concerned individual applicants rather than sponsors, the principles established have wider implications for sponsor licence compliance. The Home Office applies similar reasoning when considering whether sponsors have been dishonest in their dealings with the sponsorship system.
Sponsors must maintain accurate records and report changes correctly. Mistakes in reporting, such as failing to report when a sponsored worker stops working or incorrectly recording salary details, can lead to licence suspension or revocation. The question that often arises is whether such failures amount to dishonesty or merely to administrative errors.
Following Balajigari, the same principles should apply. A sponsor facing potential action for alleged dishonesty should be given proper notice of the concerns and a fair opportunity to explain. Administrative errors, even if serious, are not the same as deliberate deception. The Home Office must be satisfied that any breach was dishonest before taking the most serious action.
Sponsor licence holders should pay particular attention to ensuring their systems for tracking sponsored workers are robust. The certificate of sponsorship process requires accurate information about job details, salary, and working patterns. Any system that might generate incorrect data, even accidentally, creates risk. Regular audits and compliance checks are essential.
Moving Forward After Balajigari
The practical effect of Balajigari has been substantial. The Home Office has had to revise its approach to these cases. Where discrepancies are identified, caseworkers should now issue a “minded to refuse” letter setting out their concerns. Applicants are given an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made.
This does not mean that all cases will now succeed. If the Home Office puts their concerns properly and the explanation provided is weak or unconvincing, a refusal can still follow. The judgment does not prevent the Home Office from refusing applications where genuine dishonesty is proven. What it prevents is the rush to judgment that characterised too many cases before 2019.
For anyone affected by these issues, several practical steps follow. First, if you receive a “minded to refuse” letter, take it extremely seriously. You have one chance to provide a full explanation with supporting evidence. This will typically require professional legal advice and possibly assistance from accountants if the issues concern tax returns. [para 54 and 55 of Balajigari decision]
Second, if you are planning to apply for indefinite leave to remain, review your immigration history carefully beforehand. Compare what you declared to the Home Office in previous applications with what you told HMRC. If discrepancies exist, understand why they occurred and gather evidence of the innocent explanation. If errors were made, consider whether they should be corrected with HMRC before the settlement application is submitted.
Third, if your application has already been refused on dishonesty grounds without a proper “minded to refuse” process, the Balajigari decision may provide grounds for challenge. Many cases have been successfully overturned where the Home Office failed to follow fair procedures.
The Broader Significance
Balajigari addresses broader issues beyond its specific details, emphasising that principles of fairness apply within immigration control even when the state holds significant discretion. Allegations of dishonesty are significant, as they may impact employment and family relationships. Such allegations should be supported by appropriate evidence and made after the individual involved has had an opportunity for a fair hearing.
The decision also highlights the importance of good record keeping and honest dealings throughout your immigration journey. The pathway from temporary visa to settlement can span many years. Consistency and accuracy in all your dealings with both the Home Office and HMRC matter enormously. Small errors early in the journey can become significant obstacles later if they are not identified and corrected.
Balajigari reassures UK immigration applicants and sponsor licence holders that genuine errors aren’t considered fraud, but also reminds them to act with care, accuracy, and integrity in all dealings with authorities.
Stay Updated: Immigration Law Review of the Year 2025
Balajigari is just one of many essential developments that have shaped immigration law. End 2025 with a thorough review of this year’s key changes by joining HJT’s live webinar Immigration Law Review of the Year 2025 on 16th December from 4pm to 5:30pm. Led by Mark Symes and Adam Pipe, this online session covers crucial developments from sponsor licence issues to judicial review principles and EU settlement updates. For more information or to book, visit here
If you are reading this after 16 December 2025, please contact us at enquiries@hjt-training.co.uk or call 07544164692 for updated immigration training information.
Written by Shareen Khan – Legal Content Writer, HJT Training
STAY TUNED FOR MORE IMMIGRATION NEWS NEXT WEEK!
Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration advisors should consult the full decisions and official policy documents when advising clients on specific cases.
