Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
             The matter came before me to remake the appeal, the sole issue being whether the respondent had shown on the balance of probabilities that the appellant had cheated in his TOEIC test taken on 24 th July 2013 at Eden College.
             The relevant evidence of the appellant can be summarised from his two statements and oral evidence as follows.
             At the end of the hearing I reserved my decision.
         Directing myself in accordance with DK & RK and Varkey & Joseph as set out above I start from the position that the ETS evidence suffices to show dishonesty on the part of the appellant unless his evidence to the contrary goes beyond mere assertion of honesty and amounts to a credible explanation, and that in the consideration of the credibility of the appellant's explanation the credibility of the appellant as the sole witness in this appeal will be relevant.
         For the reasons above, taking all of the evidence before me into account, I find that the respondent has shown on the balance of probabilities that the appellant employed a proxy test taker to take his TOEIC English test in 2013 and that he therefore employed deception when applying for leave to remain in the UK as a student. As such there is no basis for him to be permitted leave to remain outside of the Immigration Rules on human rights grounds.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.