IA247962013

For the Appellant: Mr V Makol, legal representative from Maalik & Co, solicitors

This is an appeal by a citizen of India against a decision by the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against refusal of leave to remain as an entrepreneur. The immigration decision and the explanation given for the decision identified two deficiencies in the application. Firstly, the appellant did not disclose a telephone number for his business. The Secretary of State said that he should have done. Secondly the appellant did not sign all the documents that he should have signed in support of his application.

The Rules are precise to the point of being pedantic, one might even say infuriatingly pedantic, but they are part of a legitimate attempt to simplify the decision-making process. There is a very heavy obligation on applicants to read the Rules carefully, understand them and do as they are told. This the appellant did not do.

When the case got to the First-tier Tribunal, by some mechanism which is not entirely clear, a third ground of contention was raised and it is that the business was not a genuine business at all.

I deal first with the failure to sign the document. The Rules do provide a mechanism for relief where there had been minor or simple mistakes subject to certain conditions including the condition in this case that the truth can be verified from the documents already before the Secretary of State. Here the missing item was the missing signature of the appellant and the signature I am told, I have not checked this, was before the Secretary of State on other documents in any event.