Piara Singh v. Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi

PIARA SINGH v ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, NEW DELHI TH/5686/74(743)

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

[1977] Imm AR 1

Hearing Date: 8 June 1976

8 June 1976

Index Terms:

Minister of religion -- Granthi (Sikh priest) -- Whether Granthi a 'minister of religion' under the 'permit-free employment' provisions of the immigration rules -- Ability to act as Granthi though never previously so employed -- Whether primary purpose for seeking entry different and religious function only incidental -- Admission a matter of discretion -- HC 79, para 29(a).

Held:

Whether or not a Granthi (a Sikh priest) was a "minister of religion" as envisaged by para 29(a) of HC 79, n1 the admission of a minister of religion under the provisions of that paragraph dealing with permit-free employment was not mandatory but discretionary. And in the present case the appellant was properly refused an entry clearance under para 29(a) because, although capable of acting as a part-time Granthi (though he had never previously been so employed) and having the opportunity to do so at a named Gurdwara in this country, he would not be coming "to work as such" -- his ability to officiate at the Gurdwara was simply incidental to his primary desire to come to this country to look after his aged parents. n1 Paragraph 29(a) is set out on p 3, post.

Introduction:

The facts are fully set out in the determination below.

Counsel:

C. W. Clark, solicitor, for the appellant. K. E. R. Rogers for the respondent. PANEL: D. L. Neve Esq (Vice-President), Miss M. F. Hardie, J. A. Noble Esq

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL: The appellant Piara Singh is a citizen of India, about 50 years of age. He applied to the entry clearance officer in New Delhi for an entry certificate to enable him to come to this country as a Granthi (a Sikh priest). His application was refused by the entry clearance officer in the following words:

"I am not satisfied that you are a bona fide minister of religion or that you otherwise qualify for admission under para 29(a) or any other category of HC 79."

The appellant appealed to an adjudicator against the entry clearance officer's refusal and his appeal was heard by Mr R. T. Wright and dismissed on 12 November 1975. Mr Wright dismissed the appeal because -- for reasons which are fully set out in his determination -- he did not consider that there was any class of person within the Sikh religion who could properly be described as a "minister of religion" as envisaged by para 29(a) of HC 79. He concluded his determination in this way: "That being so it is unnecessary for me to determine the precise nature of the appellant's occupation or whether he is a 'Minister of Religion' or not, nor need I go into the reasons why it is desired that he should enter this country to take over the post now occupied by his father since, in my judgment, he is not, because he cannot in his religion be, a minister of religion within the Immigration Law and Rules. The appeal is therefore dismissed." The appellant's grounds of appeal are: "The adjudicator was incorrect in law in deciding that a Sikh priest was not a minister of religion within the Immigration Law and Rules." Mr Rogers has not seen fit to join issue upon this point; he has submitted that his function is to represent the Secretary of State and not necessarily to support the adjudicator's finding. He pointed out to us that it has been tacitly accepted by the Tribunal in past cases that it might be possible for a Granthi to be regarded as a minister of religion. However, he submitted that the appellant had been properly refused admission to this country because the entry clearance officer's refusal was in accordance with the immigration rules and did not involve any wrong exercise of discretion. Since this submission might involve points which were not covered by the grounds of appeal, and in case Mr Clark might feel that he had been taken by surprise, we offered him an adjournment of this case, should he so wish, in order to consider his position. This offer, however, he declined. We now refer to the facts of this case, which are briefly as follows. On his application form (IM2) the appellant stated that he wished to go to the United Kingdom to take up the post of a priest for 3 months. Upon this form he gave his "present occupation" as "Government official". When he was interviewed by the entry clearance officer he said that he wished to go to the United Kingdom as a priest permanently. Asked why he had only applied for 3 months on his form, he offered no explanation but reaffirmed that his intention was to remain in the United Kingdom for good. He told the entry clearance officer that his father and mother were resident in the United Kingdom and that his father was the resident priest at the Gurdwara (Sikh temple) in Leamington Spa. He said that his father had become very old and wished to retire and he (the appellant) was required to replace him. The appellant told the entry clearance officer that he was a married man with five children. He said that he had served in the police force for 9 years and that he used to be the head constable in the Central Reserve Police but had resigned as such 6 months previously. He said that he had resigned his job because he was required in the United Kingdom. He produced to the entry clearance officer a reference purporting to be signed by the secretary of the Gurdwara in Ajmer, stating that he had been appointed as Granthi in Ajmer and that his work as a priest was excellent. However, the appellant told the entry clearance officer that he had never served as a priest in any Gurdwara. He said that he attended the Gurdwara in Ajmer for the purposes of personal worship but that he had never worked there as Granthi. He said that the reference had simply been completed for the purposes of his interview with the entry clearance officer. He said that he had never officiated at a wedding or similar ceremony and that he did not consider himself to be a priest. He said that he really wished to go to the United Kingdom in order to look after his parents. On the appellant's notice of appeal to the adjudicator his grounds of appeal were given as follows, "Only to take care of my parents", and there was no mention of coming to this country as a priest. On the appellant's behalf Mr Clark has submitted that the appellant is perfectly capable of acting as a priest, should he be allowed to come to this country, since no formal qualifications are necessary and the congregation (said to consist of 50 or 60 persons) at the Gurdwara where the appellant's father works are anxious to have the appellant here to take his father's place. There is in evidence upon the file a petition signed by some 20 people asking that the appellant be allowed to come here to replace his father who is said to be unable, due to old age and poor sight, to carry out his duties satisfactorily. The signatories undertake to be entirely responsible for the maintenance of the appellant. Mr Clark submits that, since the appellant is capable of carrying out the duties of a priest and could be supported by the congregation, he should be allowed to come here under the provisions of para 29(a) of HC 79. We have considered these matters. The paragraph in question reads: "Passengers in the following categories, although coming for employment, do not need work permits and may be admitted for an appropriate period not exceeding twelve months if they hold a current entry clearance granted for the purpose or other satisfactory documentary evidence that they do not require permits: (a) ministers of religion, missionaries and members of religious orders coming to work as such, including those engaged in teaching." We take particular notice of the fact that the paragraph provides that such persons may be admitted. The section is permissive and not mandatory and therefore a question of discretion is involved. We also note that the section applies to persons such as ministers of religion who are "coming to work as such". In the instant case we feel that the fact that the appellant may be able to officiate at the Gurdwara at Leamington Spa is simply incidental to his primary desire to come to this country to look after his parents. It may be that the congregation at the Gurdwara would like the appellant to come here, but it is conceded that there are other persons who could quite well perform the office which is the alleged reason for his application. This being so we feel that the refusal of the entry clearance officer to grant him an entry certificate was a correct exercise of the discretion given to him by the paragraph in question and it was in accordance with the immigration rules and the law applicable. This being so, the adjudicator was right to dismiss the appellant's appeal, albeit he dismissed it for different reasons.

DISPOSITION:

Appeal dismissed.

SOLICITORS:

Field & Sons, Leamington Spa.