The immigration rules are a total mess and, over many years and successive governments, have been poked and prodded from numerous angles to the point where they seem very far removed from where they began. Any immigration practitioner will confirm that, even for the most experienced among us, they can be contradictory and challenging to navigate.

The rules themselves are not enough.

There are also acts of parliament, numerous appendices, constant minor amendments via statutory instruments and reams and reams of guidance which set out how the Home Office caseworkers actually reach their decisions. Without all of this information it is not possible for us to effectively advise clients.

And what of the many who cannot afford or choose not to use legal representatives? How are they meant to navigate the labyrinthine complexities of immigration and not trip-up? We have met with clients who have come to us with refusals or in need of assistance despite extensive research they have done themselves. Often this is from minor evidential issues for requirements that aren’t very clearly signposted on the application forms. Many Sponsors with foreign national workers find it hard to understand their myriad duties and record keeping responsibilities. The online application systems, particularly for entry clearance, can be challenging to use and upload supporting evidence on.

Lord Carnwath in the 2016 case of Mirza said,

‘It is particularly disturbing that the Secretary of State herself has been unable to maintain a consistent view of the meaning of the relevant rules and regulations. The public, and particularly those directly affected by immigration control, are entitled to expect the legislative scheme to be underpinned by a coherent view of their meaning and the policy behind them.’

Simply put, is it too much to expect the law to be written in a way that the people who have need of it can actually understand it? The Law Commission have produced a ridiculously long report that comes to a very simple conclusion: No.

The way in which individuals interact with immigration law is unique in that little of it affects them day-to-day. They need to make specific applications when there is need, such as when they wish to come to the UK as a worker, bring family members here to join them or finally apply to settle here permanently. Making errors in applications can lead to the direst of consequences and it is easier than you might think for families to be split apart for unnecessarily long periods of time or for those lawfully present to inadvertently become overstayers.

The Law Commission rightly thinks that codifying and simplifying the immigration rules has benefits for us all. They envisage a version of the rules set out into clear  ‘booklets’ for each application type, clearly labelled and with application forms that can be fully reviewed before submission. They also want guidance hyperlinked into these rules so that explanations of different requirements can be easily accessed.

More significantly, the Commission notes the issues that many applicants have with evidence and how good applications can be refused due to highly restrictive requirements regarding some documents. They suggest that a list of ‘alternative’ types of permissible evidence could be provided to demonstrate that requirements can still be met where it is not possible for an applicant to obtain certain documents. They believe this would lead to a more flexible and evaluative approach.

All of this is to be welcomed by the legal profession. This should make the lives of both representatives and our clients easier. It does, however, necessitate a change in culture and attitude from the Home Office. If they do not buy in to this, then none of these recommendations matter much.