Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/23073/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 18th April 2017
On 27th April 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KING TD

Between

Arif Main Tanim Uddin
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Sedgwick of Counsel, instructed by Direct Access
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who made an application for further leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur). That application was refused by the respondent on 8th June 2015.

2. In essence it was said that the appellant, in the course of the application provided a letter and bank statement from BRAC Bank Ltd dated 5th December 2017 relating to an account, 1507302013448024, held in the name of Ziaur Rahman. The letter and account was false. Further it was said that the appellant had provided a letter and bank statement from the First Security Islami Bank Ltd dated 11th December 2012, relating to account number 01032440021366, which was also found not to be genuine. In those circumstances the requisite number of points required were not awarded.

3. The appellant sought to appeal against that decision, which appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Wyman on 6th January 2016. The appeal was dismissed. The matter came before the Upper Tribunal, with permission, on the basis that the Judge had failed to take into account more recent letters from the two banks dated 15th December 2015 and 17th December 2015 respectively, which purported to confirm the genuineness of the accounts. In those circumstances I found there to be a material error of law on the part of the Judge not to have considered potentially important evidence.

4. Thus the appeal was listed to be reheard on that issue in the Upper Tribunal. Thereafter there was an adjournment, given the production of yet a further letter from the First Security Islami Bank Ltd of 15th December 2016. It was indicated by Miss A Brocklesby-Weller on behalf of the respondent at the hearing of 20th December 2016 that she would seek to verify the letter of 15th December 2016; seemingly that has not been done.

5. I was invited by all parties to determine the matter in the light of the current state of the evidence.

6. The letter from BRAC Bank dated 5th December 2012 is set out in the court bundle at C1.

7. It speaks of the fact that the appellant and a Mr Shahid Saeed agreed to form an entrepreneurial team and that a Mr Ziaur Rahman was to provide the funding. His details are set out, he having an account 1507302013448024, with a balance of 3,14,00,000,00 in credit.

8. A referral to the bank by the respondent seeking to verify that matter received a response on 22nd February 2015, “For your kind information that following attached certificates and statements not issued by our branches”.

9. Thereafter at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal a further letter from BRAC Bank was issued on 15th December 2015. It made reference to their client, Mr Ziaur Rahman. It disputed that the e-mail response relied upon by the respondent was accurate or issued from the bank. It denies having had any contact with the respondent or any enquirer on the matter. The author of the letter is Mr Md Arifal Islam. He describes himself as the Branch Manager of the Natun-Bazar Branch in Dhaka. He affirms that the particular account does exist in the name of Mr Ziaur Rahman. He speaks of Mr Rahman as being supportive of his cousin, the appellant, and his friend Mr Saeed. The letter of 15th December 2015 seeks to confirm that the letter of 5th December 2012 was genuine.

10. That letter in turn was the subject matter of further verification procedures.

11. In one sense the verification confirms something potentially of relevance in favour of the appellant, namely that the account as numbered, issued to Ziaur Rahman was closed on 10th December 2013. In one sense that confirms the existence of the relevant account in 2012,when the application was made but in another, contradicts what was said in the letter of 15th December 2015 to the extent that the writer of the letter seeks to confirm that that account continues to exist. If closed in 2013, then it clearly did not exist at the time of the writing of that letter. Of more importance and relevance, however, is a detailed response received by the British High Commission in Dhaka set out in a dated verification report of 29th July 2016 completed by Emma Hardy, Immigration Liaison Officer, relating to the date of verification of 25th July 2016. There was a meeting with the manager of BRAC Bank on 25th July 2016. He had been working for the bank since 2009 and he made observations in relation to the latest letter produced allegedly from the bank, but it had no seal or stamp used in the middle of the reference number and no address provided at the foot of the letter. The format of the bank’s solvency certificate is different to the format of the letter. The manager knows no-one of the name of Mr Md Ariful Islam. He contacted the manager of the Natun-Bazar branch who also confirmed that no person in that name ever worked at the bank as a Branch Manager of the Natun-Bazar branch.

12. Mr Sedgwick submits that the enquiries conducted by the respondent are somewhat ambiguous concerning that letter, as seemingly there was an account in the name of Mr Rahman during the period of the application that was made. In the circumstances he submits that a decision maker should be slow to conclude that the detail which was submitted with the original letter of 2012 was not otherwise than correct.

13. It seems to me, however, that as a matter of common sense regard should be had to the full context of the material as submitted. In relation to the letter of 2012 there was confirmation from the bank that it and the attached statement was not issued by the bank. Stronger evidence has been produced unfavourable to the appellant by the respondent in relation to the second letter, particularly as the claimed author of that letter would seem not to exist. In the circumstances it is difficult to understand what evidence can sensibly and realistically be relied upon as being accurate and true.

14. In relation to the First Security Islami Bank Ltd the letter of 11th December 2012 is set out at E1 with the statement of account for account 010324400021366 set out at E2. This is said to be an account of the appellant for the period 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2012.

15. That letter was also the subject of verification found at Annex F1 and F2,which confirms that the certificate received from the UK Border Agency is fake. Prima facie that would seem to be relating to the statement of account as at E2. However the verification refers to a balance of 186778.31TK as of 31st December 2012, which is different figure to that at E2 . Also it was noted that the account number set out on the verification document is 010324421366, which is not the same as the account on the statement of account. Whether that was merely a typing error on the part of the bank in replying to the verification request is not entirely clear. In any event, no attempt was seemingly made to clarify matters further.

16. A further letter from the First Security Islami Bank Ltd was presented dated 17th December 2015 confirming that the letter of 11th December 2012 was authentic and that the account did exist. It was signed by a Mr Jashim Uddin who is said to be Branch Manager of the Mohakhali Branch in Dhaka.

17. Verification was sought by the submission of three bank documents, of which two were stated to be fraudulent. An employee of the bank stated that the solvency letter and the statement are not genuine, further that the account number 24400021366 does exist but that it is in the name of the account holder Iqbal Sharif and not of the appellant. The information comes from the Assistant Vice-President of the head office and is dated 20th October 2016. By solvency letter I take it to mean the letter of 2012 and statement of account as first submitted, E1 and E2.

18. It is not clear what is said about the letter of 17th December 2015, as being the third of the bank documents submitted for verification. Clearly if the account cited does not belong to the appellant, then, as a matter of common sense the content of the letter is false.

19. Finally there was produced a letter from the First Security Islami Bank Ltd of 15th December 2016 claiming that the appellant did indeed have that particular account with the bank and that the letter of 11th December 2012 and that of 17th December 2015 were authentic. It denied that there was any record of any verification request for this account number being made by the British High Commission.

20. It was this letter that the Home Office Presenting Officer had indicated on a previous occasion would be further investigated, but in fact no further investigation was carried out.

21. Mr Sedgwick submits that the enquiries made on this particular account were defective, not least because the wrong account number was used. He submits that it would have been more appropriate for the enquiries to be directed to the branch office rather than to head office, as the branch office would have better knowledge of the appellant and his account. I noted, however, that the verification by the unnamed Assistant Vice-President at head office had his experience listed as an employee of the issuing body with access to company computer systems. I cannot understand why head office could not verify a particular account within its banking system.

22. In fairness to the applicant, it has been recognised perhaps that the precision of investigation in relation to this particular account is less than that of the other account. That having been said there is clear conflict of evidence as between information gleaned from head office, namely that the account exists but not in the name of the appellant and the more recent letters seeking to confirm that it does. Mr Sedgwick, in particular, relies upon the fact that the most recent letter has not been directly challenged by the respondent, either in verification or otherwise and that steps have not been taken to secure its verification.

23. Care must be taken of course in considering that approach, bearing in mind the potential circularity of arguments of that nature. If documents are shown to be false, then further documents which are submitted may be considered to be less reliable and given less weight under Tanveer Ahmed than might otherwise be the case. If false documents are produced to achieve a result then there is nothing to prevent further documents of similar doubtful authenticity being presented.

24. That having been said, however, it is important to realise the high threshold that needs to be established before a document can safely be said to be false. Although the burden of proving falsity to the higher level of balance of probability always rests upon the respondent, some evidence as to falsity may, as in this case, shift the evidential burden to the appellant to show that the documents were not false. Mr Sedgwick submits that in relation to the First Security Islami Bank that has been done by the production of the letter of 2016.

25. It seems to me that, as a matter of common sense, both documents need to be considered in an overall context, being submitted as they both were in support of an application made in 2012. In terms of the falsity of the BRAC letters, such have been subjected to verification investigations. It has been confirmed that at least the nature of the letters which were submitted were untrue as to the content. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how the letter of 2015 can be given any weight at all, given the clear evidence of the witness that the purported author of the letter at that branch did not exist. I find that there is compelling evidence, particularly in relation to the BRAC Bank letters that they were indeed false.

26. Given that finding it is not open to me to find with any degree of certainty that the quality of the letters produced by the First Security Islami Bank are of any greater accuracy. This is particularly so given the clear evidence that has been produced, which I find to be reliable in all the circumstances, that the account that exists relates to another. If one letter can be produced with a false author, there is no reason, given the proximity of the letters, for that not to apply to the other .

27. I find in all the circumstances therefore that the respondent has discharged the legal burden of showing on the balance of probabilities, albeit towards the higher threshold of that burden, that these letters are false. In the circumstances I find that the decision was one lawfully taken. No evidence has been subsequently adduced to cause me to doubt the accuracy of that decision.

Notice of Decision

28. In all the circumstances therefore the appellant’s appeal is dismissed under the Immigration Rules. No argument has been directed as to Article 8. The appellant was in any event given only temporary leave as a student. I can find nothing to indicate that he comes within the Immigration Rules or has compelling or compassionate circumstances outside the Rules which would lead to any grant of leave under human rights. Accordingly, any appeal in respect of Article 8 that has been presented is dismissed.

29. No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 26 April 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge King TD