OA120872013

The appellant appeals to the Upper Tribunal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing her appeal against the decision by the Entry Clearance Officer to refuse her entry clearance as the spouse of a person present and settled here. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction, and I do not consider that such a direction is warranted for these proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.

The sponsor was now providing two P60s. One P60 represented his salary from Hillside Tandoori for the period 2 July 2012 to 16 January 2013, and the other represented his salary from 16 January 2013 to the year end. If the respondent had any doubts, he should check the information with HMRC. His contract of employment had not been included as it was not a requirement under the Rules.

The appellant�s solicitors applied for permission to appeal, arguing that the judge had misdirected himself in law or had ignored the evidence that the appellant had not worked continuously throughout the tax year ending 5 April 2013. The judge was also wrong to say that no explanation had been provided as to why the bank statements in 2012 showed a weekly deposit of �360.

On 24 November 2014 Designated First-tier Tribunal Judge Macdonald granted permission to appeal, holding that the grounds disclosed an arguable error of law.

On 5 December 2014 John Parkinson of the Specialist Appeals Team settled a Rule 24 response on behalf of the respondent. The evidence was clearly inadequate to establish the level of the claimed employment and remuneration. The bank statements did not demonstrate payment of the claimed income.