IA180502014 & ors

The appellants are citizens of India born on 11 December 1979, 15 February 1980, 20 June 2003 and 10 August 2005. They are a family. The appellant�s appeal against the decision of the respondent refusing the appellants leave to remain as a Tier 4 General Student and her dependents. As it was accepted at the hearing of the First-tier Tribunal that the appeals of the second, third and fourth appellant�s rests or falls with that of the first appellant, I will also consider the first appellant�s appeal, and refer to her as �the appellant�.

Permission to appeal was given by first-tier Tribunal Judge Foudy on 26 March 2015 stating that it is arguable that an error of law occurred because the bundle of documents submitted by the appellant�s representatives in December 2014 failed to find their way to the appeal file, hence the Judge was unaware of this evidence. It was stated that this is more an error of law on the part of the Tribunal administration rather than the Judge.

The first-tier Tribunal Judge stated the following in the determination, which I summarise. The appellant applied for leave to remain under the points based system and the appellant was awarded 30 points in respect of CAS. She was not however, awarded any points in respect of maintenance/ funds. The appellant has not demonstrated that she has in her possession �5600 for 28 consecutive days prior to her application to meet the requirements of the Tier 4 General Student maintenance requirements.

The appellants were not present at the hearing of the appeal neither were they represented. They have also not provided the Tribunal with additional grounds of appeal and also and most importantly a bundle of documents with represents their evidence in respect of the appeal.

At the hearing I heard submissions from both parties. For the appellant the appellant�s representative said he does not have the bundle of documents because the solicitor did not keep a copy. He said that he has proof that documents were faxed to the Tribunal which included the appellant�s bank statements to demonstrate that she had the requisite funds in her bank account to meet the maintenance requirements of the Immigration Rules.