Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/14337/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 30 June 2016
On 29 September 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN

Between

Secretary of State FOR THE hOME dEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

LOVEPREET SINGH
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Z. Ahmed, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Al Arayn, Farani-Javid-Taylor Solicitors LLP

DECISION AND REASONS
1. By way of a decision promulgated on 11 July 2016, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 26 November 2015 was set aside to be remade.
2. For the purposes of this decision I refer to the Secretary of State as the Respondent, and to Mr. Singh as the Appellant, reflecting their positions as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
3. Submissions were made by the Appellant following the direction given in the error of law decision. I set out below my decision with reasons.
Findings and conclusions
General grounds of refusal
4. The Appellant's application was refused under paragraph 322 of the immigration rules, one of the general grounds of refusal. The burden of proof rests on the Respondent to show that an application should be refused on one of the general grounds.
UK College of Business and Computing
5. In the notice of decision the Respondent stated that the academic transcript from the UK College of Business and Computing "has been confirmed as false by the issuing authority". No further details were given. The Respondent has provided a Document Verification Report ("DVR"). This states that checks with the issuing body confirm that the documents are false. Attached to the DVR is an email from the Head of Administration at ukcbc.co.uk. This states that the Appellant studied at the UK College of Business and Computing. It states that he took the subjects mentioned on the transcript. However, it states that the transcript was never issued by the college and is a work of forgery. No details are given as to how the Head of Administration knows that it is a forgery, given that he has confirmed that the Appellant studied at the college, and took the subjects mentioned on the transcript.
6. The Respondent has provided a copy of the email sent to UK College of Business and Computing on 4 March 2015 requesting information. In that email she asked the college four questions, but the response from UK College of Business and Computing does not answer these questions. For example, the reply does not address whether or not the reference number, date of course, college crest, authorised signatures and security features match the records of the UK College of Business and Computing. Instead the reply just states that it is a forgery, without giving any information as to why.
7. Further, the Respondent has not provided a copy of the transcript which was sent to UK College of Business and Computing. She has not shown which document the UK College of Business and Computing assert is a forgery. I find that she has failed to satisfy the burden of proof to show that the academic transcript submitted by the Appellant was false.
City and Guilds
8. In the notice of decision the Respondent states that the English-language certificates submitted from City and Guilds have been verified online. "We have confirmed that the tests were not sat by yourself as the passport number and date of birth held on City & Guilds' records relate to another individual of the same name."
9. The Respondent provided a DVR in relation to the City and Guilds certificates. This states that "Although the certificates themselves are 'genuine' they have been obtained by deception. The transcripts are 'FALSE'.".
10. The Respondent has provided an email from a member of the customer service team at City and Guilds. This states that City and Guilds have records for the Appellant and it sets those records out. It then states "Details of the candidate on the certificate match details we hold in our certification system". However, it states that the date of birth does not match their records, although it does not give details as to the date of birth that they hold. It then states that the details displayed on the certificate issued by City and Guilds match details in their certification system, except that the date of birth is not what they have on file.
11. This email indicates only that the date of birth is not the same on the City and Guilds certificate as in their records. It states in the DVR summary that the issuing body has confirmed that the documents are false, but this email does not state that the documents are false at all. It states that the details of the candidate match the City and Guild records apart from the date of birth. It does not at any point state that the certificates are false.
12. As before, the Respondent has not provided a copy of the documents which were checked by the City and Guilds. City and Guilds have not stated that the certificates are false. I find that the Respondent has failed to show that the certificates provided by the Appellant were obtained through deception.
13. I find that the Respondent has failed to show that the application should have been refused by reference to paragraph 322(1A).
No valid CAS
14. The Respondent also refused the Appellant's application because the CAS submitted with the application was not valid. She stated in the notice of decision that the Tier 4 Sponsor register was checked on 20 March 2015 when UK Business Academy was not listed as a Tier 4 Sponsor as of this date.
15. In the grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, it states:
"The refusal asserts that Appellant's Tier 4 Sponsor was not on the list on the date of decision. The Appellant relies on the common law duty of the Respondent to issue 60 days to students who find themselves in such a position."
16. I have no evidence before me that the UK Business Academy was on the Tier 4 Sponsor register when the Appellant made his application on 23 May 2014. The application form before me appears to have been signed on 9 June 2014 by the Appellant and 10 June 2014 by his representative, although the submission date on the application cover sheet is given as 23 May 2014. But in any event, I have no evidence of the validity of the CAS on any of those dates.
17. There is a print out of the CAS details in the Respondent's bundle. This states:
"The CAS has been marked as CANCELLED. The details are displayed below.
**WARNING - The Sponsor's licence is revoked.**"
18. The printout indicates that the CAS was assigned on 23 May 2014 with an expiry date of 24 November 2014. It states that the current CAS status date is 13 August 2014, but there is no indication on the CAS as to when the Sponsor's licence was revoked.
19. I have carefully considered all of the documents on file. The Appellant has failed to provide any evidence to show that his Tier 4 Sponsor was on the approved Sponsor register at the date of application, and therefore that his CAS was valid at the date of application. For example, there is no evidence from the college. It is in circumstances where the CAS was valid at the date of application, but became invalid after the date of application and prior to the date of decision due to action taken by the Respondent, that the Respondent's policy allows for a 60 day letter to be issued.
20. I have no evidence before me that the CAS was valid at the date of application. I have no evidence before me as to when the Tier 4 Sponsor licence was revoked. The Appellant has not addressed this in the further submissions. He has only addressed the issue of the provision of false documents.
21. I have found that the Respondent should not have refused the application under paragraph 322, but I have no evidence before me that the Appellant provided a valid CAS with his application, and therefore no evidence that the Respondent should have exercised her policy of issuing a 60 day letter. Without a valid CAS he cannot meet the requirements of the immigration rules.

Notice of Decision
22. The appeal under the immigration rules is dismissed.

Signed Date 29 September 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chamberlain