IA230892015 & IA230912015

The Appellants are both citizens of Bangladesh and are married to each other. The first Appellant who I shall refer to as the Appellant was born on 10 th of October 1979. His wife, the 2 nd Appellant, was born on 25 th of March 1988. They appeal against decisions of the Respondent dated 2 nd of June 2015 to refuse their applications for leave to remain. The Appellant applied on 17th of November 2012 for leave to remain as a Tier 1 entrepreneur with his wife as his dependent. Their appeals were allowed by Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal Borsada sitting at Birmingham on 22 nd of July 2016.

The July 2016 letter continued: "in this regard we would like to confirm that we have not received any written or over the telephone request from any authority for the verification of the aforementioned letter and bank statement or else we would have been able to confirm the authenticity of the above documents issued by us and undersigned by the branch manager". The 4 th of November 2012 letter and the bank statements issued were genuine and Mr Alam was financially sound and solvent.

On appeal to the Upper Tribunal, Judge Pickup found that the email correspondence relied upon by the Respondent showed that the enquiry made of the bank [by the Respondent] and the response from the bank was short but quite clear. The account number no longer existed. The only redaction was as to the name of the bank employee answering the query and was done for good reason to protect his or her identity. However, if the letter of 14 th of July 2016 was itself genuine then the Respondent's case would fall away.

Any further letter he obtained from the branch would face the same criticism that the previous correspondence had received. There was no point in him producing false bank statements and letters to evidence that his account existed and had funds at the relevant time where that was not what was being questioned. There was no reason why he would rely on false documents to evidence something he could do through genuine bank documents. The responses from the bank had caused misunderstandings but the Appellant should not be penalised for that.

In oral submissions the Appellant's solicitor emphasised that Mr Alam felt the bank were not being helpful. The DVR had confirmed that the account had existed at the relevant time namely February 2015 and that there was the correct balance and address of the account holder. It was important to consider the point made by Mr Alam that there was no reason why he would produce a false certificate when he could more easily produce a real one. The Presenting Officer indicated he had nothing to add as it appeared that the bank account had existed between 2012 and 2015.