short duration. The Rules relating to returning residents, as the phrase itself implies, are intended to allow persons resident in this country to resume their residence after an absence of up to two years:
they are not intended to entitle people resident overseas to maintain settled status in the UK by paying short visits to this country once every two years.
This issue was considered at some length by the High Court in ex parte Tolba in 1987, which is the leading judicial authority on the rules relating to returning residents. The judge said "paragraph 56 of HC 169 provides that 'on satisfying the immigration officer that he had indefinite leave to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom when he left and that he has not been away for longer than 2 years' the immigrant 'is to be admitted for settlement'. It seems to me that the words of this rule must not be too strictly construed. For political or other reasons a returning resident may not wish to be admitted for settlement. He may only wish to be admitted as a visitor, or as a student, for a limited period, and it would, in my judgment be wrong so to interpret paragraph 56 as to require the immigration officer to admit the immigrant for settlement. So the effect of paragraph 56 is to require the immigration officer to admit the immigrant for settlement if that is what he seeks, and in my judgment there is no obligation on an immigration officer to advise an immigrant who seeks admission only as a visitor, or as a student, for a limited period, of his right to be admitted for settlement." The court emphasised that it was for the applicant to satisfy the immigration officer that he qualified for admission as a returning resident must depend upon his state of mind at the time of entry. It is a necessary implication of this that an immigration officer may, if he considers it necessary, make enquiries to establish a passenger's intentions.
However the Tribunal in Calfos declined to accept this construction. The effect of HC 251 is to reinforce the traditional and longstanding interpretation of the rules relating to returning residents as set out by the High Court in ex parte Tolba. It will not change current practice on these cases.
The position is that a person returning for a limited period will not by that means extend the normal 2 year limit on readmission as a returning resident under paragraph 59 if he has been away for more than 2 years since he last left, but for example he has lived here for most of his life. Alternatively, it is open to him to apply under paragraph 93 of HC 251 for his indefinite leave to be restored, and there is a right of appeal against a decision to refuse such an application.
If a person settled in the UK returned home on holiday during the course of an extended absence the position would depend on the nature and duration of the absence.
If the person seeking admission as a returning resident is indeed settled in the UK (ie ordinarily resident here) and is simply breaking a relatively short absence
absence overseas to return briefly to this country the immigration officer will normally grant indefinite leave under paragraph 58 of HC 251, on the basis that he has remained ordinarily resident in the UK throughout. If the facts could not readily be ascertained at the port, and the officer