- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
thanx for replyingCasa wrote:As Kitty has said, you can't submit new evidence for an appeal which the ECO didn't see in the original application. Better to make a new application when you have all the documentation previously missing.
Kitty wrote:If you're going to appeal you can only rely on evidence that shows the state of affairs as they were at the time of the application.
Complete incorrect advice.Casa wrote:As Kitty has said, you can't submit new evidence for an appeal which the ECO didn't see in the original application. Better to make a new application when you have all the documentation previously missing.
First, the statutory provisions. Section 85(4) and (5) of the 2002 Act provide:
“(4) On an appeal under section 82(1) or 83(2) against a decision an adjudicator may consider evidence about any matter which he thinks relevant to the substance of the decision, including evidence which concerns a matter arising after the date of the decision.
I think that DR (ECO: post-decision evidence) Morocco* [2005] UKIAT 00038's conclusions would be more relevant than the above incomplete, and therefore misleading, quote of paragraph 11.alikhan28 wrote:Post Evidence can be accepted and there is a very famous case law for this.
DR (ECO: post-decision evidence) Morocco* [2005] UKIAT 00038
Here are some main points
First, the statutory provisions. Section 85(4) and (5) of the 2002 Act provide:
“(4) On an appeal under section 82(1) or 83(2) against a decision an adjudicator may consider evidence about any matter which he thinks relevant to the substance of the decision, including evidence which concerns a matter arising after the date of the decision.
.EA (Section 85 (4) explained) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00013 (30 January 2007) wrote:the effect of s85(4) is widely misunderstood
Kitty I know some post evidence is accepted like bank statements.Kitty wrote:alikhan28, that's all well and good but when the application is for entry clearance, section 85(5)(b) (as pointed out by vinny) says that only evidence of the circumstances at the time of refusal can be considered. You still need to think about whether the evidence the OP is talking about is likely to be considered "relevant" to that point in time.
If curryhut has evidence that was in existence at the time of the refusal (e.g. if he had tax returns but forgot to send them in), or even if he can provide additional evidence that confirms he was in receipt of regular income on the refusal date, then that's one thing.
If he is saying that he wants to submit evidence of his earnings since the refusal date, then the only way they are going to be relevant is in support of his claim that he was in fact earning regularly at the refusal date as well. THis seems a much shakier proposition: why could he not just submit wage slips from the relevant time instead?
In those circumstance, why not reapply?
Indeed I mean whole case law not few lines.vinny wrote:I think that DR (ECO: post-decision evidence) Morocco* [2005] UKIAT 00038's conclusions would be more relevant than the above incomplete, and therefore misleading, quote of paragraph 11.
Moreover, apparently,EA (Section 85 (4) explained) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00013 (30 January 2007) wrote:the effect ofs85(4) is widely misunderstood
I haven't said that material that is created post-decision is never acceptable.alikhan28 wrote:
Kitty I know some post evidence is accepted like bank statements.
Read case law again and then comment.
This is completing misleading saying post evidence is not considered.
There are 2-3 important case laws on that.
I do agree making a fresh application is good option.
Ali
Will bank statements from a period some time after the decision prove that at the time the decision was made it is more likely than not that the OP could support his wife?We take a different view when it comes to evidence about whether evidence of the coming to pass of an event which had been the subject of disputed predictability or likelihood is admissible. Evidence that it had not happened equally would be inadmissible. The usual issue is whether the particular matter or circumstance is likely at the date of decision; eg obtaining employment. The subsequent obtaining of the predicted job is a matter arising afterwards and evidence about it is excluded. It is akin to evidence being inadmissible to show that an intention has changed. The fact that the new matter or circumstance eg the job may have been predicted or reasonably foreseeable does not avoid it being a matter arising after the event, nor is it a circumstance appertaining at the time of decision.
thanx to everyone for replying.Kitty wrote:I haven't said that material that is created post-decision is never acceptable.alikhan28 wrote:
Kitty I know some post evidence is accepted like bank statements.
Read case law again and then comment.
This is completing misleading saying post evidence is not considered.
There are 2-3 important case laws on that.
I do agree making a fresh application is good option.
Ali
It's a question of whether that evidence will actually be accepted as confirming the circumstances as they were at the date of decision.
That's why I was asking the OP for more details about the evidence he's talking about.
The decision in DR Morocco says at paragraph 27:Will bank statements from a period some time after the decision prove that at the time the decision was made it is more likely than not that the OP could support his wife?We take a different view when it comes to evidence about whether evidence of the coming to pass of an event which had been the subject of disputed predictability or likelihood is admissible. Evidence that it had not happened equally would be inadmissible. The usual issue is whether the particular matter or circumstance is likely at the date of decision; eg obtaining employment. The subsequent obtaining of the predicted job is a matter arising afterwards and evidence about it is excluded. It is akin to evidence being inadmissible to show that an intention has changed. The fact that the new matter or circumstance eg the job may have been predicted or reasonably foreseeable does not avoid it being a matter arising after the event, nor is it a circumstance appertaining at the time of decision.
I would rather reapply than have to make that argument, to be honest.
Dear Bro,curryhut wrote:hi.my wifes visa was rejected in july 2010.i am self emplyed and the reason for the decline was
1. irregular payments in bank statements
2. no tax paid receipts
3. no evidence of national insurance contributions
i have now appealed and am waiting for a date.if i rectified the above what chances do you think i would have at the appeal hearing
thanx in advance
Dear friendcurryhut wrote:hi.my wifes visa was rejected in july 2010.i am self emplyed and the reason for the decline was
1. irregular payments in bank statements
2. no tax paid receipts
3. no evidence of national insurance contributions
i have now appealed and am waiting for a date.if i rectified the above what chances do you think i would have at the appeal hearing
thanx in advance