rejected spose visa

[curryhut]

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

[vinny]

Do you have the documents that they wanted to see?

[curryhut]

hey.by the time im given an appeal hearing i will have 5 months bank statements and the tax paid proof.
i wanted to know weather anyone else has been refused for the same reasons

[Kitty]

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.

Do you mean that it will take you 5 months to get that information, or do you mean that you are going to rely on documents that will only be created in the next 5 months?

[Casa]

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.

[curryhut]

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.

thanx for replying
so u think i dont have good grounds to appeal
has anyone out there been refused for similar reasons

[vinny]

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.

That's correct. New evidence is possible, subject to 85(5)(b).

[alikhan28]

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.

Complete incorrect advice.

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.

Ali

[Kitty]

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?

[vinny]

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.

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,

the effect of s85(4) is widely misunderstood

.

[alikhan28]

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?

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

[alikhan28]

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,

the effect ofs85(4) is widely misunderstood

Indeed I mean whole case law not few lines.

Ali

[Kitty]

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

I haven't said that material that is created post-decision is never acceptable.

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:

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.

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?

I would rather reapply than have to make that argument, to be honest.

[curryhut]

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

I haven't said that material that is created post-decision is never acceptable.

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:

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.

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?

I would rather reapply than have to make that argument, to be honest.

thanx to everyone for replying.
i can prove that tax was eing paid at the time of refusal
my solicitor did not seek my tax receipts at the time
the bank statements had irregular payments,but as i deal with cash only i feel there would be a case
since the date we applied for the case i have all the bank statements which show a regular income
i have been out today seeking professional advice and have been told i should appeal

[sabir2011]

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 Bro,

Salaams. Hope you are well. I got a very similar problem with refusal points. Could we please discuss where have you got with your appeal. Please I need your help and advise as insha'Allah I'll hearing in few months too. Have you had your hearing yet or not and if you had what's been the outcome? What did you provide as evidence?

I'll be very grateful if we could share experiences as we are both in the same situation.

Allah (SWT) makes it easy for us all. Ameen

[satka]

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 friend

I have applied spouse /settlement visa last week, Im PR holder i m working in uk through inidan company hence I receive only allowance slips, i have attached all allowance slips with my wife applicatin, Me too doesnot have tax paid receipts and NI number, am i also in trouble applicaiton likely get rejected, please advise.
thanks
satka