Post
by azharmahmood » Sun May 28, 2017 12:46 am
I am trying to find old letters and came across one correspondence letter which is as follows. will try to provide more information later if I can find more letters
The Appellant lodged his application for further leave to remain on 27th March 2009. His existing leave was due to expire on 31St March 2009. if the Appellant can be criticised, then it is only because he did not apply to extend his leave somewhat earlier. On 14th April 2009, the Respondent returned his application as invalid, because the photographs which he had submitted were not in the format specified as mandatory by the UK Border Agency. However, by 14th April 2009, Tier 4 of the Points Based System had been launched on 31s’t March; the date on which the Appellant’s leave expired. The Appellant duly completed the Tier 4 (General) Study Migrant application form, but his application was refused on 14th July 2009 on the basis that he had claimed 30 points for a valid visa letter, but the letter which he had submitted did not meet the requirements as it failed to give details of the documents which had been used by the institution in order to assess the Appellant’s academic suitability for the course. In addition, it was claimed that the Appellant had failed to provide documentary evidence of his qualifications in support of the application. Those documents were provided to me, and it is, perhaps, not surprising that the visa letter did not comply with the Tier 4 requirements, because it was dated 19th March 2009; before Tier 4 was effective, and had been prepared for an application for further leave to remain.
The first issue for me to determine was whether there was a valid in country right of appeal. The Respondent had claimed, in the refusal letter, that there was not, because the Appellant had lodged his Tier 4 application on 12th May 2009, whilst his leave had expired on 31st March 2009. Mr XYZ referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in JH (Zimbabwe) v SSHD (2009) EWCA Civ 78. The facts of that case were similar to those before me.
The Court held that where an application had been lodged, in time, a later “application” had to be treated as a “variation” of the first, even if it were made for a different purpose. Unless the original application was specifically withdrawn, his previous leave would be extended. On the basis of the
decision in JH, and as the Appellant’s original application had not been withdrawn, I concluded that there was a valid appeal before me.
Nevertheless, the requirements of the Points Based System are strict. If an applicant shows that he or she is entitled to the points claimed, then their application will be granted. If not, leave will be refused. The Guidance states that the visa letter for adult students should include a list of the evidence used by the approved education provider to assess the applicant’s academic ability to finish his course. i had sight of two letters from the University of XYZ. The letter dated 9th March 2009 confirmed the Appellant’s name, the title and level of his programme, and details of his attendance. As l have said, his attendance for the period covered by the letter was good. The letter dated 19th March 2009 confirmed that the Appellant was enrolled on his course, and provided details of the sponsor licence number, student reference number, his passport number, date of birth, the start and end date of his programme, his tuition fees, and confirmation that they had been paid in full. Neither letter provided details of the evidence used by the University to assess his academic ability to finish his course.
On that basis, although it gives me no pleasure whatsoever, I have to agree with the Respondent that the visa letter does not fulfil the requirements, and so the Appellant does not qualify for the 30 points claimed under Appendix A. With the greatest of
regret, I must dismiss his appeal under Paragraph 24SZX(c) of the Immigration Rules.
Had the Appellant raised human rights grounds in his notice of appeal, i could have considered whether the Respondent’s decision amounted to a breach of the Appellant’s right to a private life. However, no such grounds were raised, and I cannot consider matters which have not been raised in the grounds of appeal. I do say, however, that it was clear to me that the Appellant was following his course and that he had paid his tuition fees in full.
DECISION
This appeal is dismissed.
