OA041072013

For the sake of convenience I shall refer to the appellant as �the entry clearance officer� and the respondent as �the claimant.�

Notice of hearing of this appeal was sent by first class post to the claimant care of Mrs Neeva Karki, his sponsor, at her Hillingdon address. Its date, time and place were clearly set out in the notice itself. The notice was sent to the sponsor herself and to Aschfords Law at their address in Harrow, Middlesex. The claimant had been represented before the First-tier Tribunal by counsel, instructed by Aschfords Law. Directions were also set out in the notice of hearing.

The claimant is a national of Nepal born on 19 th September 1984. His appeal before the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the respondent to grant him an entry clearance as a partner under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal Judge in a determination promulgated on 23 rd April 2014. The entry clearance officer refused the application on the basis that the claimant had not provided evidence relating to the financial requirements under Appendix FM-SE of the Immigration Rules.

The Judge also had regard to the calculation of the figure relating to savings which was over �21,000. The Judge accepted that counsel had correctly calculated the figure in respect of savings with all the documents before him. That meant that the sponsor and the claimant went beyond the threshold which was wrongly calculated in the reasons for refusal letter. The balance statements presented showed funds over the period April 2012 to September 2012, which is six months before the application was made. The various statements are set out.

On 21 st May 2014, First-tier Tribunal Judge Shimmin granted the entry clearance officer permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge. He found that the grounds of appeal and the determination disclosed an arguable error of law inasmuch as the immigration rules, Appendix FM-SE set out the types of evidence required but the Judge �has had no regard to this in the determination�; nor had he had any regard to the relevant date, the date of the application and the evidence prior to that date and the claimant's sponsor's annual gross income was below the threshold.