IA012952013

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)����������������������������������� Appeal Number: IA/01295/2013

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 because the Appellant failed to score any points for Appropriate Salary under Appendix A of HC 395.� This was because according to the Appellant�s Certificate of Sponsorship her prospective employment most closely corresponded to occupation code 1132 of the Codes of Practice set out in Appendix J.� The minimum acceptable hourly rate of pay for occupation code 1132 was �10.55 per hour, whereas the salary offered to the Appellant was at the rate of �10.34 per hour.

The Judge found nothing wrong with this decision, but decided to allow the appeal for the reason that the decision was not in accordance with the law because in making the decision the Respondent had failed to apply her own Evidential Flexibility Policy following the decision in Rodriguez [2013] UKUT 42 (IAC) .

At the hearing, Mr Avery argued that the Judge had erred in law.� He referred to the grounds seeking leave and pointed out that the validation trial part of the Policy relied upon by the Judge had not been in force at the date of the decision.� In any event, the Policy as interpreted in Rodriguez had no application because this was not a case where more information might be extracted from the Appellant.� There had been nothing overtly wrong with the Appellant�s application such as information being omitted.