UI2023004986

For the Appellants: Mr R Sharma, Counsel instructed by Everest Law Solicitors Ltd

            It is accepted that the Previous Appeal Decision formed the starting point for Judge Clarke's determination in this appeal. The dismissal of the previous appeal turned on evidence which cast doubt on the evidence that the Appellant did not work in Nepal and discrepancies about her accommodation there. I come to the detail of that below.

            Judge Clarke took the Previous Appeal Decision as her starting point. She considered evidence since that appeal. She considered whether the evidence showed that there as "real, effective or committed support by the [S]ponsor to the Appellant". Having regard to what she considered to be continuing discrepancies in relation to the Appellant's employment and accommodation situation, Judge Clarke did not accept that the Sponsor provides such support to the Appellant. She therefore dismissed the appeal for a second time.

            The Appellant appeals the Decision on two grounds as follows:

Ground 1: The Judge "ignored the explanation given by the Appellant's father in his evidence as to how this incorrect information came to be recorded on the transfers". It is said that in the context of the Sponsor's "difficulties in communicating", the explanation he provided was "a sufficient answer".