IA221642014

I see no need for, and do not make, an order restricting publication of the details of this appeal.

The appellants in this case are citizens of Bangladesh. The first appellant was born in 1993. He is the son of the second appellant who was born in 1973. They appealed unsuccessfully to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Secretary of State on 8 May 2014 (in the case of the first appellant) and 15 May 2014 (in the case of the second appellant) refusing them further leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

The appellants were given permission to appeal by Upper Tribunal Judge Frances who said pithily that it is "arguable that the judge erred in law in his application of the transitional provisions of the Immigration Rules".

The essential point in this appeal is extremely simple. It is the appellants' contention that the Secretary of State and then the First-tier Tribunal Judge applied the wrong Rules. Mr Choudhury, for the appellants, was very persuasive. Mr Walker, who had the opportunity of considering the submissions carefully before the hearing as well as following them during the hearing, was persuaded, as I am, that Mr Choudhury's submissions are right. This decision was reached with consent. Explaining my conclusion might not be quite as straightforward as stating it I am going to try.

There are transitional provisions in the rules so that people already in the United Kingdom who entered lawfully when they were not required to have competence in the English language can remain without establishing such competence. Applicants who wish to renew their leave and who would otherwise have to satisfy an English language test do not have to satisfy an English language test when that was not a requirement when they obtained the leave that they wish to renew.