VA087472013

The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on 1 st January 1956. She appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge T Jones) who in a determination promulgated on 7 th February 2014 dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse entry clearance as a visitor under paragraph 41 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended).

The Appellant issued Grounds of Appeal and the matter came before the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Jones) sitting at Taylor House on 16 th January 2014. At that stage of the proceedings the Appellant was not represented and the Sponsor attended to give evidence. The Appellant�s case was set out at paragraphs 8-11 of the determination.

Dealing with the conclusions of the judge at paragraph [14] he quite rightly considered the refusal under paragraph 320(7A) as the first issue. However having considered the documentation before him and applying the appropriate standard and burden of proof, he did not find there was any deliberate intention to deceive by applying the decision of AA (Nigeria) [2010] EWHC Civ 773 and thus he did not find that the Respondent had discharged the burden to demonstrate that paragraph 320(7A) was met.

He went on then to consider the case under paragraph 41 and it is further plain from his findings at [14], which are not challenged by the Respondent before this Tribunal, that there was evidence of her settled circumstances and her documented means at the time of application and thus he found she could meet paragraph 41(i), (ii) and (vii). Thus the only issue remaining related to (vi) as to whether or not the Appellant had demonstrated that she would be able to maintain and accommodate herself adequately out of resources available to her without recourse to public funds or taking employment.

In this respect the judge considered the Sponsor�s evidence and that whilst he had provided evidence before that had satisfied the Entry Clearance Officer that his circumstances were such that he could maintain and accommodate her, he had not brought the necessary documents for this application and as the judge was not persuaded to adjourn the hearing or allow time for them to be sent, he did not find that paragraph 41(vi) had been satisfied. Thus he dismissed it under that paragraph.