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.
This is an appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hawden-Beal, promulgated on 26 th June 2014, following a hearing at Birmingham on 11 th June 2014. In the determination, the judge dismissed the appeal of Muhammad Sohail Iqbal. The Appellant subsequently applied for, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matter comes before me.
The Appellant is a male, a citizen of Pakistan, who was born on 22 nd November 1984. He applied for entry clearance as a family visitor and on 16 th April 2013 the Entry Clearance Officer rejected his application because false representations had been made or false documents had been submitted, and the Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the Appellant was a genuine visitor who would leave the UK at the end of the visit.
The judge heard evidence from the Appellant�s sponsoring father, Mr Javed Iqbal and in his opening statements set down the burden of proof and the standard of proof, explaining that, �in immigration appeals the burden of proof is upon the Appellant and the standard of proof required is upon a balance of probabilities� (see paragraphs 4 to 5). The judge then set down the relevant Immigration Rules pointing out that, �the relevant Immigration Rules are set out in paragraphs 40-43 and 320(7A) of HC as amended� (paragraph 6).
The judge then went on to consider the basis of the ECO�s refusal. This was that in a previous application, which went to appeal and was dismissed in 2011, the Appellant had said that he was unemployed. In this application he now claims to have been employed since 2005. The judge held that there is no evidence of the Appellant�s income in his bank statements. There are only random cash deposits. He owned no property. He had no assets. He had no dependants. Therefore the ECO had refused the application (paragraph 10).
The judge then went on to dismiss the appeal under paragraph 320(7A) on the basis that it was clear that false representations had been made (see paragraph 16). Additionally, however, the judge also dismissed the appeal under paragraph 41 of HC 395 as well. As the judge explained,
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.