Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The claimant had originally submitted Test Certificate 1 with an earlier application for entry clearance, which had been refused, and her appeal dismissed for reasons other than the English Certificate. In the instant appeal the claimant asserted that she had not been aware that Test Certificate 1 was not recognised and that she was unaware that the College had been removed from the list of approved providers.
The First-tier Tribunal judge found that the latter certificates, although submitted after the date of decision satisfied the requirements of the Immigration Rules and that the submission that it post dated the date of decision and was therefore not admissible was not effective: the certificates confirmed her language ability as at the date of decision and were thus admissible.
Permission to appeal was granted on the grounds that it was arguable that the judge had materially misdirected himself in finding that the subsequent submission of the certificate was relevant to proficiency because the relevant requirement under the Immigration Rules is to submit a valid certificate. The grounds seeking permission to appeal also state that the date of the certificate filed subsequent to the decision had not been referred to; the date was relevant because the new test was not available at the relevant date which was a requirement under the Rules.
The claimant had submitted her application for entry clearance on 25 th June 2012. The application was refused on 13 th December 2012. There were significant amendments to the Immigration Rules to take effect on 9 th July 2012 save for transitional provisions. In so far as relevant to this appeal the Rules applicable at the date of decision are:
A277 from 9 July 2012 Appendix FM will apply to all applications to which Part 8 of these rules applied on or before 8 July 2012 except where the provisions of Part 8 are preserved and continue to apply, as set out in paragraph A280.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.