OA032012014

This is the respondent's appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hawden-Beal ("Judge Hawden-Beal") promulgated on the 10 th December 2014. However, for the sake of clarity, throughout this decision the parties will be referred to as they were referred to at the First-tier Tribunal hearing, such that Mrs Kalim is referred to as the appellant and the Entry Clearance Officer-Islamabad is referred to as the respondent.

" because it is clear and accepted by the respondent that the sponsor does earn in excess of the financial requirements imposed by Appendix FM because the amended refusal notice only refuses the application under the financial requirements on the basis that the wages are not reflected in the bank statements".

" Moreover, once an apparently bright-line rule is regarded as subject to a Near-Miss penumbra, and a decision is made in favour of a near-miss applicant on that basis, another applicant will appear claiming to be a near-miss to that near-miss. There would be a steep slope away from predictable rules, the efficacy and utility of which would be undermined. "

He further submitted that the Court of Appeal in SS (Congo) had made the point that it would generally be proportionate to expect people to re-apply, if they failed to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules, but that this issue had not been considered at all by the First-tier Judge and that there was no evidence of any hardship if the appellant simply had to re-apply. He asked us to set aside the decision and to dismiss the appeal.

Support for a 'Near-Miss' principle, was originally propounded in the judgment of Sedley LJ in the case of Pankina v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 719 at [46], wherein he stated: