IA268752013 & IA268962013

The appellants appeal with leave against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Braybrook in which she dismissed their appeals against the decision of the respondent made on 24 June 2013 to refuse the first appellant leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) Migrant. The second appellant is his wife and dependant.

�Because these are not appropriate documents in your circumstances as you are an employee of your own company so therefore cannot claim the turnover of the company. This is a separate legal entity so therefore these cannot be considered your funds but the companies funds�.

The HOPO below acknowledged that this new evidence was admissible under Section 85A to enable the appellant to dispute his allegation of forgery.

�11. Given the variations in the figures given by the accountants and the non compliance with the requirements for evidence from an accountant, the appellant was an alternative given a further 14 days for the submission of corporation tax return showing the net profit of the business at the relevant period. The appellant indicated that such a corporation tax return was available. Mr Abbas also indicated that he would submit the guidance relevant at the date of application. No further documentation was submitted.

Counsel relied on two documents; the first was the CT 600 company tax return form for World IT Services Ltd issued by HMRC for the period 1/6/2012 to 31/5/2013. It shows a total turnover from trade of �20,400; net trading and professional profits of �17,656 and corporation tax of �3,531.20. The second was the UKBA Policy Guidance on Tier 1 General for applications made on or after 6 April 2013. The particular guidance Counsel relied on said this: