The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of ZN (Afghanistan) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi) [2010] UKSC 21 on the 12 May 2010. The case concerned the construction of the Immigration Rules as relevant to family members seeking to enter the United Kingdom to join a sponsor who had been granted asylum and subsequently British citizenship.

Paragraphs 281 and 297 of the Immigration Rules apply to family members making ordinary applications to gain entry into the United Kingdom. The rules in paragraphs 352A and 352D relate to the applications made to join a sponsor who had been granted asylum. Submitting an application under the latter rules removes maintenance and accommodation requirements.

The appellants were Afghani nationals, the wife and children of the sponsor who had arrived in the United Kingdom seeking international protection in 1999. Indefinite leave to remain as a refugee was granted 2001 and in 2005 British citizenship was granted. The appellants applied under paragraphs 352A and 352D for entry clearance to join the sponsor. This application to the Entry Clearance Officer was refused on the grounds that the accommodation and maintenance requirements within paragraphs 281 and 297 had not been met.

Unsuccessful appeals were made to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld upon reconsideration. The Court of Appeal held that a person who obtains refugee status but subsequently acquires citizenship is no longer a relevant sponsor for the purposes of paragraphs 352A and 352D. State parties could either prescribe procedures for the cessation of refugee status or in the event that no provision is made, cessation could occur automatically. Directives 2004/83/EC and 2005/85/EC did not set out a procedure.

Following the Court of Appeal judgment, the Treasury Solicitor communicated that the appellants’ case under Article 8 had been reconsidered and a grant of three years discretionary leave to remain had been made. The Supreme Court nonetheless considered the questions relating to construction of the Immigration Rules.

Referring to Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25, the court discussed the correct method of interpretation. Considering Ahmed Mahad v Entry Clearance Officer [2009] UKSC 16, the court found that the rules were to be construed according to their natural and ordinary meaning. Finding the approach of the Court of Appeal unpersuasive, the court instead reasoned that the phrase “has been granted asylum” does not mean that the person must still be a refugee at the time of an entry clearance application.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the fact that British citizenship had been subsequently granted did not alter the fact that a grant of asylum has previously been made; therefore paragraphs 352A and 352D were applicable to the appellants’ case.