IA006082015

The Appellant is a citizen of India who entered the UK as a student, and whose leave was subsequently varied as a Tier 1 post study work migrant so that it would expire on 21 August 2014. Within time, the Appellant applied on 21 August 2014 to vary his leave once more, on this latter occasion as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant.

That application was refused on 20 October 2014, and in consequence a decision was made to remove the Appellant from the UK by reference to s47. The Appellant duly appealed against these immigration decisions, and his appeal was heard on 3 September 2015, and allowed under the Immigration Rules by decision of First Tier Tribunal Judge Bircher promulgated on 7 October 2015.

By a decision of First Tier Tribunal Judge Andrew dated 1 June 2016 the First Tier Tribunal granted the Respondent permission to appeal on the basis it was arguable the Judge had erred in her approach. It had been conceded before her, and in the application, that the Appellant had not made an investment in his business of £50,000 or more before making his application. There was a shortfall, which he had said in his application was covered by the cash that was available to him to invest in that business, and which he intended to invest in it.

It was however conceded before the Judge that the Appellant had not supplied with his application, or subsequently before the date of the Respondent's decision to refuse the application, any evidence of the £16,000 in cash that he had claimed in his application form to have available to him to invest in his business. Thus it was arguable that the Appellant did not meet the evidential requirements of the Immigration Rules.

It is common ground before me that the Judge's finding that the Appellant had demonstrated that he had invested in his business in excess of £50,000 is simply wrong [29]. That was not his case, and it was not borne out by the evidence.