Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Appellant is a citizen of India who appealed against the decision of the Respondent dated 16 th April 2014 to refuse to vary his leave to remain in the United Kingdom and to remove him. He had applied for leave to remain under the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant scheme and the Respondent had refused his application under paragraph 245DD of the Immigration Rules. The Appellant's subsequent appeal to First-tier Tribunal Judge Adio was heard on 3 rd December 2014 and dismissed under the Immigration rules and in respect of human rights grounds on 19 th December 2014.
However the judge found there was one other aspect on which the Appellant�s appeal had to fail. If a person is claiming points for being a director of a UK company a print out of the current appointment report from Companies House dated no earlier than three months before the date of application should be provided. The document provided by the Appellant was dated 15 th August 2013 and therefore did not comply with the time limit set in the rules. Given that, the Appellant did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 41-SD(e)(v)(2) of Appendix A of the Rules and the appeal had to be dismissed.
The Respondent had lodged a Rule 24 notice dated 3 rd March 2015 stating that the Appellant did not submit a document dated in the correct time period. As such the judge did not err in law.
After a brief adjournment we indicated to the parties that we would dismiss this appeal for reasons which we would give in writing.
The focus in the grounds of appeal was that the judge had made a material mistake as to fact, and that the Appellant had in fact obtained a printout from Companies House three weeks prior to submission of the application. However the particular document which might have established this was not placed before Judge Adio and given its absence the judge was quite entitled and indeed bound to conclude that the particular Rule had not been complied with and therefore the appeal had to be dismissed under the Immigration rules. It was too late to produce it now.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.