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 application for permission to appeal was made by the respondent but nonetheless I shall refer to the parties as they were described before the First Tier Tribunal.
The appellants are citizens of Pakistan and born on 5 th April 1984 and 6 th October 1982. The first appellant made an application on 1 st April 2014 to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 General (Student) under paragraph 245ZX and the second appellant made an application as the husband and dependant of the first appellant under paragraph 319C of the Immigration rules.
The first appellant was required in part to show she was in possession of �3,200 for a consecutive 28 day period, that period ending on a date no earlier than one month prior to the application. The appellants accepted that they had sent a bank statement to the respondent in support of the application but this was one statement and only covered the period from 17 th February 2014 to 8 th March 2014 and was short of the time period required.
First-tier Tribunal Judge Lucas allowed the appellant�s appeal on 6th January 2015 because although the appellant had failed to show the requisite funds for the requisite period, the Home Office Presenting Officer agreed that the matter could be returned to the Secretary of State to exercise a discretion. The appellant had maintained at the appeal that she had the relevant funds in her account at all times but had simply not sent in the right documents.
An application for permission to appeal was made on the basis that the judge had erred in law because he had no discretion to remit this matter back to the Secretary of State. The judge had not indicated where this discretion derived. Permission to appeal was granted. Mr Poddar argued at the hearing that the matter had been remitted by agreement. Ms Isherwood responded that the matter did not fall within the remit of Paragraph 245AA and there was no discretion. The respondent also relied on Durrani (Entrepreneurs:bank letters evidential flexibility) [2014] UKUT 295 (IAC) .
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.