In the present case, a finding that the appellant has a legitimate expectation to be granted entry clearance would require this Tribunal to venture into the very middle of the macro-political field described by Laws LJ in Begbie . The decision to reconsider the issue of entry clearance arose directly from the recommendations of the Sutton Inquiry and the acceptance by the Government of those recommendations. There was, we find, a very strong public interest in ensuring that persons, such as the appellant, who had not actually been given visas so as to enter the United Kingdom, should have their applications reassessed on the basis of the "more questioning and challenging approach" to the relevant Immigration Rules identified in the third key finding of the Report. To put the matter bluntly, the public has a strong and legitimate interest in seeing its Government take steps to ensure that people who are subject to immigration control do not enter the United Kingdom on a false basis.
The Tribunal accordingly finds that the decision in the present case cannot be said to be "not in accordance with the law".
Does the appellant meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules?
The Business Plan submitted by the appellant to the Entry Clearance Officer is an important part of the appellant's application. On any reading, it is highly unsatisfactory document, as the following examples make plain. On page 3, under the heading "details of business activities", we find this:
At page 4, under the heading "expansion of business services in the future" it is stated that the appellant's "long term plan for the Business is to expand his client base beyond London. Also he intends to broaden his services in order to have more customers. He plans to start repairing of electrical devices. The purpose of the company will be to service more well-to-do people, a fact which will surely have positive effect on the revenues of the company".
On the same page, under "strength of the business" it is stated that the appellant has received a very good education and experience in Romania. No details are given. It is then asserted that because of his qualification and experience, the appellant "will build up a reputable business to generate a lot of good will and contacts, which will be of immense value to the future development of his business. The fact that he will offer reasonable competitive prices of the services should attract more customers".
At page 5, somewhat belatedly, we find some details as to the qualifications and experience of the appellant. He is said to have graduated as a locomotive electro mechanic which would give him "extensive knowledge on electrical installations both domestic and industrial". The appellant is said to have changed his position in November 2001 when he began working as an installation assembly electrician and that since 2000 he has worked "on his own account servicing private clients as an electrician". No further details of that are given.
On page 7, reference is made to "available sub-contractors". It is stated that "should the need arise for taking on a larger number of sub-contractors [the appellant] intends to use his own connections and/or to advertise in order to find suitable and beneficial contracts". No details of any such connections are given. The Plan then goes on to say that in case the appellant faces "some initial difficulties in finding clients", he would work as a sub-contractor and that amongst such sub-contractors the appellant "may find his future partners for bigger projects".
On page 8, the "strategy of the company" is said to be "based on continual improvement of the material base". By "material base" it appears that the Plan is referring to "materials which have already proven their names and brands, which will attract a larger number of customers". On page 9, reference is made to the appellant's "contacts within the industry" who, it is said, "will help him to gain first hand knowledge of the electrical market requirements in London". No details of these contacts are given.
Overall, the Business Plan submitted by the appellant is, we find, both remarkably vague and shot-through with platitudinous and naive statements. It is very far from being a document that suggests a serious intent on the part of the appellant to leave his home country and engage as a self-employed electrical contractor in the United Kingdom. Indeed, we have to say that its submission – far from advancing the appellant's application – does the opposite.
Having considered the evidence in this case, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has entirely failed to show on balance that he meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Paragraph 212(2) requires the money which the appellant is putting into the business to be under his control and sufficient to establish himself in that business in the United Kingdom. Sub-paragraph (iii) provides that until the business provides an income the appellant must have sufficient additional funds to maintain and accommodate himself and his dependants (in the present case his wife) without recourse to employment or public funds. Sub-paragraph (iv) provides that the appellant's share of the profits of the business must be sufficient to maintain and accommodate himself and his dependants without recourse to employment or public funds. As the Entry Clearance Officer observed, significant deposits had been made into the appellant's bank account around the time of the application and no explanation for those payments has been provided. Nor were bank statements provided to show the financial position of the appellant over a sufficient period of time to enable an accurate picture of his finances to be obtained. No accounts of the Romanian business were provided so as to show profit and turnover over a period of time. There was inadequate evidence to prove that the sum of some £6,000 held by the appellant had been earned and saved by him and his wife.
An applicant's command of English is not in itself a determining feature. Having said that, the appellant's command of English was plainly very limited and the Entry Clearance Officer was entitled to observe that the appellant did not intend to undertake a language course before coming to the United Kingdom. The appellant was unable to read a letterhead upon which the address was given of a place in the United Kingdom, where the appellant said he intended to undertake a training course, following his admission to this country. It is frankly difficult to see how any person who intended to work, at least initially, as a domestic electrician would be able to communicate with prospective customers, if he had as limited a command of written and spoken English, as does the appellant.
As we have already found, the Business Plan in no sense suggests that the appellant genuinely intends to work as an electrician in a self-employed capacity in the United Kingdom. In addition, the appellant gave little explanation at his interview as to the nature of his business activities. He asserted at one point that replacing plug points in a house could cost between £25 and £30 and that one could charge £1,500 for rewiring a house. He did not, however, explain how he had arrived by these figures. Furthermore, the cost figures provided by the appellant at his interview did not relate to those contained in the Business Plan.
, Quite apart from his difficulties with English, the appellant demonstrated what would be a frightening lack of knowledge about the wiring of a British plug if, as he would have had the Entry Clearance Officer and the Tribunal believe, he were truly intending to carry out electrical work in private households in the United Kingdom.
Overall, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has failed on balance to show that he meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules to be admitted on the basis contained in his application for Entry Clearance.
This appeal is dismissed.
P R Lane
Senior Immigration Judge
Approved for electronic distribution