Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/39420/2014
IA/39423/2014
IA/39426/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at City Centre Tower Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4th July 2016
On 4th August 2016

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

HIRALBEN [P] (first appellant)
NIKUNJ [P] (second appellant)
[t p] (third appellant)
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellants

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellants: Mr M Azmi, Counsel instructed by French & Co
For the Respondent: Mrs Aboni, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The details of the Appellants and their immigration history is set out in my Decision promulgated on 21st April 2016. At a previous hearing of these appeals on
16th March 2016 I found that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law and I set that decision aside. The appeal was then adjourned for the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to be remade and hence the matter comes before me today. The remaining issue in the appeals is whether the second Appellant qualifies for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant, and the first and third Appellants as his dependants. The point in contention is whether the second Appellant's application satisfied the requirements of paragraph 41-SD(e)(iv) of Appendix A of HC 395. Paragraph 41-SD(e)(iv) is a requirement to produce documents of a specified nature showing trading for a particular period of time.
The Hearing
2. At the hearing, I heard brief evidence from the second Appellant whereby he confirmed that the contents of a short additional statement were true. He was not cross-examined.
3. I also heard submissions from the representatives. Mrs Aboni referred to the Refusal Letter and argued that the specified evidence required by the Immigration Rules had still not been produced. The Supplementary Bundle overlooked by the First-tier Tribunal Judge contained some relevant documents, but they lacked the detail required by the Immigration Rules. The second Appellant's application therefore still failed to comply with those Rules.
4. In response, Mr Azmi took me through the original Bundle of Documents and the Supplementary Bundle which in his submission provided much evidence of the trading activities of the second Appellant. In particular, he pointed to advertising fliers and contracts which contained details complying with the requirements of paragraph 41-SD(e)(iv)(1) and (2). There were also contracts, documents showing employee details, and invoices which established an active business with a number of clients.
Decision and Reasons
5. As I said earlier, the sole issue in this appeal is whether the second Appellant has produced at the relevant time the documents of a particular nature to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 41-SD(e)(iv) of Appendix A of HC 395. I have carefully perused the documents submitted by the second Appellant including those contained in the Supplementary Bundle previously overlooked. Under the guidance of Mr Azmi, I find that the second Appellant has produced such documents and therefore I allow these appeals.

Notice of Decision

The appeals are allowed under the Immigration Rules.

Anonymity

There has not been an anonymity order previously in these appeals. I was not asked to make one, and indeed find no reason to do so.

Signed Dated 04/08/2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

In the light of my decision to remake the decision in the appeals by allowing them, I have considered whether to make a fee award under Section 12(4)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. I have had regard to the Joint Presidential Guidance Note: Fee Awards in Immigration Appeals. I make no fee award. This is because the appeal has been allowed on the basis of documentary evidence not before the Secretary of State when the original refusal decision was made.

Signed Dated

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton