M v Entry Clearance Officer, Mumbai (India)

The Appellant, a citizen of India, appeals the determination of an adjudicator (Mr D M Brunnen) dismissing  appeal against the refusal of the respondent to grant  application for an entry clearance as a working holidaymaker.

The appellant made his application for an entry clearance on 9 October 2001. He was interviewed on that day. The application was refused under paragraph 95 of HC 395 on 30 May 2002, the respondent not being satisfied that the appellant was unmarried, that he intended to take employment incidental to his holiday nor that the appellant intended to leave the United Kingdom at the end of his working holiday. The respondent observed in the explanatory statement that the appellant appeared older than his claimed age although this particular concern did not appear to feature in the notice of refusal.

At the adjudicator hearing the respondent was not represented. The adjudicator resolved all matters in dispute in favour of the claimant and accepted that he had been born on 22 October 1974 as claimed. There has been no appeal by the respondent or respondent's notice challenging the adjudicator's findings.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal because he considered the appellant fell outside the age bracket laid down by the rules.

The relevant sub-paragraph of the rule at the relevant time made it a requirement that the applicant "is aged 17-27 inclusive or was so aged when first given leave to enter in this capacity". The adjudicator observed: "The appellant has thus far not been given leave to enter his application having been refused by the Entry Clearance Officer and therefore on a reading of this requirement of the paragraph he falls outside the age bracket necessary to qualify for entry under this heading."