IA185072013 & IA185412013

For ease I refer to the parties as they were in the First-tier Tribunal so that hereafter the Secretary of State for the Home Department is referred to as the respondent and Md Khan and Ayrin Pervin are referred to as the appellants.

In substance the judge found that the application under paragraph 245DD and Appendix A of the Immigration Rules was refused on the grounds of deficiencies in the documentary evidence adduced in support. Details of the entrepreneurial team members and relevant telephone numbers were missing from the contract that the appellants had relied upon. Furthermore, as evidence of the business being registered in the United Kingdom the appellants provided a blank copy of a tax return form.

The representative for the appellants relied on his skeleton argument filed for the hearing before me. If I found an error of law in the judge�s determination then the appeal should be allowed under the Rules, but as argued in the original grounds of appeal the appellants should succeed under Article 8 ECHR in any event.

The First-tier Judge signed and dated the determination on 20 January 2014. The determination was promulgated on 21 January 2014. On or about the same date the Court of Appeal decision in Rodriguez was published but that case would not have been before the First-tier Judge. There can be no criticism of him in that regard. However, in allowing the appeal to the extent that the respondent should afford the appellants the opportunity to adduce missing evidence the judge did not explain sufficiently why the appellants should be given that opportunity.

The relevant Section of the Rules has been further changed as from 1 October 2013 to make more specific when and how the Secretary of State may contact the applicant or his representative requesting correct documents but those changes are of no application here because the decision was made at an earlier date.