![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> OA (Entry Clearance Officer: service of documents) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00009 (25 January 2007) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2007/00009.html Cite as: [2007] UKAIT 00009, [2007] UKAIT 9 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
OA
(
Entry Clearance Officer: service of documents
)
Nigeria
[2007] UKAIT 00009
Date of
hearing: 10 January 2007
Date Determination notified: 25 January 2007
![]() ![]() |
APPELLANT |
and |
|
Secretary ![]() ![]() |
RESPONDENT |
If theEntry Clearance
Officer disregards the plain (and repeated) direction
of
the Tribunal to serve and file Explanatory Statement and supporting
documents
in time for the hearing, then he must take the chance
of
the Tribunal not understanding his reasoning processes and disagreeing with his assessment
of
the credibility
of
the appellant. Where an Immigration Judge is faced with a party's failure to comply with directions, his first question must be whether he has sufficient material before him to enable him to determine the appeal, notwithstanding this failure.
The absenceof
the respondent's
documents
, as in this appeal, which was on the papers causes particular difficulties in assessing whether the decision reached by the
Entry Clearance
Officer is sustainable in law, but
documents
submitted by the non-defaulting party may enable the appeal to be determined. Whether that is so in any particular appeal is a question for the Immigration Judge hearing the appeal.
Wheredocuments
filed by an appellant were apparently genuine and sufficient to sustain his claim, even though (unbeknown to the Immigration Judge) the
Entry Clearance
Officer had received evidence that some
of
those
documents
were forged, it is difficult to see how the
Entry Clearance
Officer could properly complain
of
a positive credibility finding by the Immigration Judge on the material which was before him.
The Immigration Decision
"You have applied forentry clearance
to enable you to study in the United Kingdom and have completed an additional questionnaire to assist your application. I have carefully considered your application on the basis
of
your passport, application form, supplementary questionnaire and the papers you have provided. You have declared that the information you have given is complete and true to the best
of
your knowledge.
However, I am not satisfied, on the balanceof
probabilities, that you meet the requirements
of
paragraph 57, and in particular: that you are able to meet the costs
of
the course and maintain and accommodate yourself without recourse to public funds or taking employment
BECAUSE
The costof
your tuition, maintenance and accommodation is to be borne by your father. However, the financial
documents
you have submitted refer to a limited company. I note that there are five signatories to this company account. There is nothing to suggest that you have access to these funds to pay for your proposed trip. In the absence
of
any other evidence
of
your sponsor's business, income, or the origin
of
these funds, I am not satisfied that the evidence presented is a true reflection
of
your sponsor's financial circumstances or that these funds would be available. This ultimately leads me to doubt you have the funds to pay for your course or adequately maintain and accommodate yourself in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds or taking employment.
Furthermore, the educational establishment in the United Kingdom has stated that the costof
your tuition fees for one year is £7950. British Council guidelines suggest students require between £7800 and £9700 per annum for maintenance and living expenses in the United Kingdom. This brings the total cost
of
your studies in the United Kingdom for one year to £17000. Your sponsor's financial
documents
do not satisfactorily confirm that you have sufficient funds to cover the cost
of
your studies in the United Kingdom and adequately maintain and accommodate yourself whilst there.
Therefore I am not satisfied that this represents a genuine and meaningful offerof
sponsorships and that these funds would be but [sic] question your motivation for undertaking this course at this time.
I therefore refuse your application."
Directions to the Entry Clearance
Officer
"Please note that under 51(4), the Tribunal must not consider any written evidence which is not filed in accordance with directions unless it is satisfied that there is good reason to do so.
This appeal has now been listed for a substantive hearing on 3 April 2006. If the specificdocuments
are not filed with the Tribunal 5 working days before the date
of
this hearing, subject to rule 51(4), the appeal may be determined in the absence
of
these
documents
."
The determination
"11. Having considered the matter de novo, as I am obliged to do, I am satisfied that the respondent was fully justified on the evidence before him in arriving at the decision to refuse the application."
Grant of
reconsideration
The Explanatory Statement
"The appellant had soughtentry clearance
as a student via the courier system. The application was considered on the basis
of
the statements made on the Visitor Application Form and supporting
documents
submitted. The
Entry Clearance
Officer was not satisfied that the appellant met the requirements under paragraph 57
of
the Immigration Rules for the reasons set out in the attached notice
of
refusal (APP200). A copy
of
all relevant indexes indicated below is attached.
The appellant has appealed against the decision to refuse the application and I have reviewed the application in lightof
the grounds
of
appeal.
I note that no fresh compelling evidence has been submitted and, furthermore, evidence has been obtained that proves the sponsor's bank statement to be a forgery.
Whilst I am aware that this was not referred to in the APP200, nevertheless it damages the appellant's credibility and clearly raises doubts regarding how he would pay for the course and maintain and accommodate herself for the durationof
his proposed studies.
I am not persuaded to alter the original decision to refuse the application."
[Emphasis added]
"I have reviewed theEntry Clearance
Officer's decision following receipt
of
this appeal and carefully considered the grounds. I am satisfied that the decision is correct and in accordance with the Immigration Rules.
Entry Clearance
Officers in both Lagos and Abuja are able to assess and decide applications for
entry clearance
primarily on the information provided in the application form and the
documents
submitted in support.
Entry Clearance
Officers may make additional enquiries or reference to local records to assist them in deciding an application. In the minority
of
cases when an interview is deemed necessary the Applicant will be asked to attend in person. In such cases the interview record will be included in the appeal bundle."
Discussion
DECISION
The original Tribunal did not make a material errorof
law and the original determination
of the appeal shall stand.
Signed
Dated: 26 January 2007
Senior Immigration Judge Gleeson