IA241622012

At the hearing before me there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Appellant. I decided to hear the appeal in the absence of the Appellant under the provisions of Rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I was satisfied that the Appellant had been notified of the hearing and I considered it in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.

I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.

The application for leave to remain was refused under the provisions of paragraph 245ZX(d) of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 395. This was because the Appellant failed to score 10 points for Maintenance (Funds) under Appendix C. Although the Appellant had paid the course fees of �3,050, he had failed to show that he had the required maintenance funds of �2,000 for the relevant consecutive 28 day period. The Appellant had produced evidence of such funds held by his Sponsor, Chaudhary Muhammad Yousaf, but had failed to provide any evidence of his relationship to this person.

The Judge allowed the appeal as he found that the Appellant was the son of his Sponsor on the basis of the evidence provided by the Appellant�s passport and an affidavit from the Sponsor dated 27 th August 2012.

At the hearing Mr Tufan argued in accordance with the grounds of application that the Judge had erred in law in that the evidence relied upon by the Judge for his finding did not comply with the requirements of paragraph 13B of Appendix C to the Immigration Rules.