Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nisha Bedi challenges a migration decision concerning the residence period she says was required before she could settle. She says she expected a five-year route as a care worker but was told she had to wait ten years. She asks to be able to settle. The Secretary of State for Migration asks the court to deny reconsideration on the present record, or at most limit relief to checking which rule applied when the decision was made. 2. The hearing record contains the parties’ submissions and three presented copies of the same November 2026 policy-announcement excerpt. The excerpt describes a proposed ten-year default and a possible five-year route for eligible care workers. It does not state whether or when the proposal took effect. No refusal date, refusal notice, or decision record is supplied. The defendant expressly says it cannot identify the date or the rule then in force. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the plaintiff has shown which residence requirement applied when her application was refused, and that the refusal relied on a rule that was not in force. The plaintiff bears the burden of supporting her request with specific facts, records, or testimony under Rule 1, the Claim Needs Proof. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague accounts, and Rule 45 requires an agency decision to have support in the record. 4. The second issue is whether the evidence justifies reconsideration or the requested settlement outcome. Under Rule 6, the remedy should match the harm proved. Rule 47 recognizes limits on agency discretion, but the record must support a basis for finding that the agency acted arbitrarily, ignored required factors, or relied on a forbidden factor. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff says she was misled, that she was a care worker, and that she understood the applicable period to be five years. In her final statement she argues that the ten-year requirement was only a proposal, not a law in force, and says she should be able to settle. These are her allegations and arguments; they are not independently confirmed by a decision notice or other record. 6. The defendant does not claim to know the refusal date or the rule then in force. It accepts that the announcement excerpt cannot settle whether the proposal later took effect. Its position is that the plaintiff’s account and the excerpt do not establish that the decision-maker applied a proposal rather than an operative rule. It asks the court to deny reconsideration on this record, not to find that the refusal was proven correct. Evidence and findings 7. The plaintiff’s statements support a finding that she understood herself to be eligible for a five-year route and says she was told to wait ten years. They also show that she disputes the basis for that answer. But the statements do not identify when the refusal occurred, who made it, or what written rule or reasoning the decision-maker used. The court accepts that these are the plaintiff’s reported understanding and account, not proof of the rule in force. 8. The announcement excerpt is available and has been considered. Its wording is important: it describes a proposal and a possible route, not a confirmed commencement date or a final rule. The three copies are the same excerpt, not independent confirmation. The excerpt therefore supports neither a finding that the ten-year requirement was in force at the relevant time nor a finding that it was not. 9. The defendant’s statements confirm that it cannot provide the missing date or decision record. That concession means the defendant has not demonstrated that the refusal was supported by the operative rule. It does not, however, supply affirmative proof that the refusal was unlawful. The plaintiff’s final assertion that the proposal was not law does not resolve whether it later took effect before her refusal. Reasons 10. The plaintiff’s concern is understandable, and the record leaves a genuine uncertainty about the rule applied. But the burden is on the plaintiff because she seeks relief. Rule 1 requires support for the key facts, and Rule 2 favors reliable records where the dispute turns on dates and the content of a decision. The missing refusal date and decision record are decisive: without them, the court cannot compare the decision with the rule then in force. 11. Rule 45 also requires record support for an agency decision. The defendant has not pointed to such support here, and the court does not find that the agency’s decision was shown to be correct. But the claim before the court is the plaintiff’s request for relief. The absence of agency support in this hearing record does not by itself prove the plaintiff’s assertion that the decision applied a proposal rather than an operative rule. The court must not convert the defendant’s inability to identify the rule into proof of the plaintiff’s case. 12. The plaintiff’s account is relevant evidence of what she understood and says she was told. It does not establish the date or the legal status of the policy. The announcement excerpt is ambiguous on commencement, and the defendant’s candid acknowledgment of that ambiguity is not an admission that the proposal never took effect. Neither side has supplied evidence resolving the point. Applying the plaintiff’s burden, the issue of which requirement applied is not proven in her favor. 13. The remedy issue follows from that finding. The plaintiff asks to be able to settle, but the record does not establish that she met the applicable requirements or that the refusal used an invalid rule. Ordering settlement would go beyond the proven facts. Reconsideration is also unsupported because the court cannot identify a demonstrated error in the refusal. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to proven harm, and Rule 47 does not authorize relief merely because the record is incomplete. The defendant’s alternative request to limit relief to checking the applicable rule is not necessary as an order: the plaintiff has not established a basis for any relief in this proceeding. 14. This decision is limited to the evidence presented. It is not a finding that the ten-year requirement was in force, that the five-year route was unavailable, or that the agency’s refusal was correct. It is a finding that the plaintiff has not proved the facts needed for the relief she requests. No monetary claim or amount is established. Final order 15. The plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and for settlement relief is denied on the present record. Judgment is entered for the defendant. No payment is ordered. The court makes no finding that the refusal was substantively correct; the plaintiff’s claim fails because the applicable rule and the basis of the refusal were not established, and the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff.