IA201422013

An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal came before Judge Hands on 11 th October 2013 for determination �on the papers�, and was dismissed under the Immigration Rules, because the decisions in respect of Attributes and Maintenance were said to be lawful. But the appeal was allowed under Article 8, because Judge Hands thought that the appellant should be allowed to complete his course, which was due to end in August 2014. Permission to challenge that outcome was granted by Designated Judge Coates, and so the matter came before me today.

The appellant himself did not attend the hearing, and was unrepresented. Notice of the hearing had been sent to his address in Hounslow, and had not been returned undelivered, so I was satisfied that notice had been duly served and that I could proceed in his absence. Miss Everett appeared for the Secretary of State.

It seemed to me that the challenge by the Secretary of State to the First-tier decision to allow the appeal on Article 8 grounds had merit, in that Judge Hands did not sufficiently explain how Mr Gulzar had established a human right to complete his course, when he did not satisfy the immigration rules for leave to remain as a student. That want of proper reasons constituted a material error, requiring the decision on the appeal to be re-made by the Upper Tribunal.

Contrary to the finding of the First-tier Tribunal, I find that the appeal does fall to be allowed under the Immigration Rules. As far as English language is concerned, there is no requirement in the Rules for the Speaking and Writing components of an English language test to be taken together and to appear on the same certificate. The rule in question ~ paragraph 118(b)(ii)(4) of Appendix A ~ says nothing about that. It may be mentioned in the Policy Guidance, but if it is not in the Rules, it is not binding.

As for the Maintenance funds, Mr Gulzar included a bank certificate for the period 12 th April to 11 th May 2012 with his earlier application. This showed a credit balance of well over �2,000 throughout the requisite 28-day period, when all that was needed was �1,600. When asked to submit a more recent bank statement, Mr Gulzar sent one in for the period 12 th February to 4 th March 2013. This showed a credit balance even further above the �1,600 required throughout the period. But the period was too short. It was not 28 days.