IA004292013

By way of a determination promulgated on 22 March 2013 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Heynes allowed the appellant�s appeal against the Secretary of State�s decision to remove her. The respondent has not sought to challenge this conclusion, which in any event is entirely consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ahmadi [2013] EWCA Civ 512 .

Judge Heynes dismissed the appeal brought by the appellant against the Secretary of State�s decision to refuse to vary her leave; giving the following reasons for doing so:

�7. The appellant accepts that she did not have a certificate of sponsorship. She claims that, having been a Tier 1 Migrant, she did not need to produce one. The Immigration Rules do not provide for such an exception. Paragraph 79D [of Appendix A to the Rules] states that no points for appropriate salary will be awarded if no certificate has been provided. I can only conclude that the appellant was correctly scored in relation to Appendix A.

The appellant accepted that the bank statements that she had provided were three days short of the requisite period; a matter that she had subsequently rectified. However, whether or not the respondent ought to have exercised the evidential flexibility policy is neither here nor there given that the application could not succeed for want of a certificate of sponsorship.

In view of the chronology, a decision to remove the appellant under s.47 was unlawful. Since the only valid decision is the refusal to grant further leave to remain, human rights issues do not arise.�