Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers:
UI-2022-000141 / EA/12154/2021
UI-2022-000142 / EA/03705/2021
UI-2022-000143 / EA/03722/2021

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 7th April 2022
On the 21 June 2022

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

Rebecca Ayorkor Adjei
Amanda Angeley Adjei
Abigail Angorkor Adjei
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)
Respondents

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Stephen Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondents: Mr Adeyemi Bello, instructed by Apex Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Secretary of State sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in the above listed appeals, but I shall refer to the parties as they were described in the First-tier Tribunal, that is Messrs Adjei as the appellants and the Secretary of State as the respondent.
2. The Secretary of State appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Herlihy allowing their appeals against the decision of the respondent dated 17th March and 22nd February 2021 refusing to issue them with a family permit under Regulation 7 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.
3. In the appeal the Secretary of State relied on a Document Verification Report dated 16th March 2021 which stated that checks had been made on the bank statements produced by the sponsor, W Adjei, from Lloyds Bank. The Document Verification Report asserted that the Lloyds bank statements “do not match bank records and are false”. That verification was made by MD, an entry clearance assistant at the Liverpool Visa Section. The basis on which that assessment was made was an email dated 10th March 2021 at 14.48 from a fraud investigator at customer services, Lloyds Banking, which stated: “Hi, name and transactions match, address does not.”
4. The judge considered this, finding at [1.2]:
“The Respondent states that as part of her application the first appellant submitted Lloyds bank statements in the sponsor’s name and was satisfied that false information was submitted in relation to the application following checks with Lloyds Bank who confirmed that they did not produce the document with the details presented.”
5. In her decision the judge stated at [6.3] the following:
“6.3 I have carefully considered the sponsor’s witness statement and the bank statements appearing in the Respondent’s bundle and those submitted by the Appellant in bundle 3 which I have no reason to doubt were also obtained by the sponsor from his bank. In considering the DVR I note that this does not particularise in what way or how the bank statements submitted with the application do not match the bank records. In examining both sets of bank statements I find they are entirely consistent with one another and record the same entries. The sponsor has attempted to provide an explanation which is the most that he can do and I found his explanation to be credible in that bank may have thought that because some of the bank statements were in a different format from due to the later bank statements having been obtained and printed directly from the bank whereas the earlier ones comprise statements sent to the sponsor directly. I note that there was no requirement for the submission of any bank statements as this was an application under Regulation 7 where an applicant is only required to show that they are related to the EEA sponsor as a family member and that the EEA sponsor has settled status.
6.4 In examining the considerable volume of evidence, I am satisfied that the first Appellant and sponsor are related as claimed as husband and wife and that the sponsor had provided the bank statements as issued to him by his bank in the belief that this would assist the application by showing that he had sufficient funds although this is not a requirement of the Regulations. It is not credible that the first Appellant would submit fraudulent bank statements when there was no requirement to submit them in any event. I find that the DVR does not support the conclusion that the first Appellant has submitted false documents as there is no indication as to how it is claimed that the statements submitted do not accord with the bank records. It is clear that the sponsor has, through his representatives written to Lloyds Bank and that no evidence of a response has been submitted. I found the sponsor to be a credible witness and can understand that he has difficulty in explaining what is alleged against him as the DVR does not particularise where the bank statements and bank records are at variance.”
6. The Secretary of State in her application for permission to appeal cited both of those paragraphs and also submitted that all three linked appeals were allowed with reference to Regulation 12 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 and it was submitted that the judge had made a mistake a fact when finding that the respondent had failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the first appellant had provided false Lloyds bank statements in support of their application.
7. It was submitted that the judge had failed to correctly consider the full content of the DVR and that it was submitted that the judge’s findings that the DVR did not indicate why the bank statements were false was based on a failure to consider the full contents of the DVR and as a result, the judge had materially erred in law and this oversight had had an effect on the judge’s overall assessment of the sponsor’s and appellants’ credibility and as such had materially affected the outcome of all three appellants’ appeals.
8. The judge carefully considered the documentation and identified that the DVR did not particularise how the bank statements submitted with the application did not match the bank records and also, the judge made her own assessment, finding that they were entirely consistent and factored in the explanation of the sponsor. Bearing in mind there was no requirement for the submission of any bank statements because this was an application under Regulation 7, it was open to the judge to find that it was not credible that the first appellant would submit fraudulent bank statements when there was no requirement to do so. As stated by the judge, there was no indication of how it was claimed that the statements did not accord with the bank records and the sponsor had written to Lloyds Bank for an explanation.
9. By way of observation, the DVR, resting as it did on the basis that the address of the sponsor did not match, was weak evidence indeed to assert that the documents were false. Lloyds Bank did not say that the documents were false, merely that the name and transactions matched but that the address did not. As the challenge to the judge’s findings on the DVR falls away in relation to the first appellant so does the challenge to the decision in relation to the second and third appellants.
10. At the hearing before me, entirely sensibly in my view, Mr Walker submitted that there was no error of law in the judge’s decision, and I think he was right to do so. The judge’s conclusions were well-reasoned and entirely open to her, and I find that her decision shall stand in relation to all three appeals because there were no material errors of law to undermine the First-tier Tribunal decision.

Notice of Decision

The appeal by the Secretary of State in relation to the error of law is dismissed and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal will stand. The appellants’ appeals remain allowed.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Helen Rimington Date 22nd April 2022

Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington