- 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
avi123 wrote:Hello masterpeas,
I hope you get the appeal, even my situation can be similar to yours. Just out of interest, where did you get this paragraph from-
Section 3C automatically extends the leave of a person who has made an application for further leave to remain during a period of extant leave. Technically, the leave is "treated as continuing". While either section 3C or 3D leave is in force, the applicant is not entitled to make any more applications for variation of leave to enter or remain. On the other hand, it is possible to vary the grounds of an application already made, even by introducing something completely new."
"'one-stop ' principle - one application, one decision, one appeal - is essential to the operation of the appeal process that was introduced in the1999 Act and has been extended by subsequent Acts. "
Please let me know.
Thanks
From this UKBA document.avi123 wrote:Just out of interest, where did you get this paragraph from-
Hello, thank you for your reply. Bless all of us to win the appeal!avi123 wrote:Hello masterpeas,
I hope you get the appeal, even my situation can be similar to yours. Just out of interest, where did you get this paragraph from-
Section 3C automatically extends the leave of a person who has made an application for further leave to remain during a period of extant leave. Technically, the leave is "treated as continuing". While either section 3C or 3D leave is in force, the applicant is not entitled to make any more applications for variation of leave to enter or remain. On the other hand, it is possible to vary the grounds of an application already made, even by introducing something completely new."
"'one-stop ' principle - one application, one decision, one appeal - is essential to the operation of the appeal process that was introduced in the1999 Act and has been extended by subsequent Acts. "
Please let me know.
Thanks
Hi my dear friend, I noticed many of your kind replies to other posts which are very helpful.sushdmehta wrote:From this UKBA document.avi123 wrote:Just out of interest, where did you get this paragraph from-
dear vinny, thank you very much for your kindest reply and reference to further detailed information. But I feel quite confused after reading EA case comments as follows and am not sure whether my new evidence arrised after application date would be "relevant to the substance of the decision" or not??
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2007/00013.htmlSection 85(4) is as follows:
"On an appeal under section 82(1) or 83(2) against a decision the Tribunal may consider evidence about any matter which it thinks relevant to the substance of the decision, including evidence which concerns a matter arising after the date of the decision."
Section 85(5) provides, by way of contrast, that an appeal against entry clearance or a certificate of entitlement (that is to say, an out-of-country appeal) is to be decided by reference only to evidence relating to the circumstances at the date of the decision. As the Tribunal pointed out in LS (Gambia) s85(4) applies, without any difference of wording, to asylum and human rights appeals and in-country immigration appeals. It follows that, under the 2002 Act, they are governed by the same principles so far as the admissibility of evidence is concerned: that is what s85(4) is about.
It is thus not open to an appellant to argue simply that, on the date of the hearing, he meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules. He can succeed only if he shows that the decision that was made was one which was not in accordance with the Immigration Rules. Section 85(4) allows him to show that by reference to evidence of matters postdating the decision itself, and it may well be that the effect is that the question for the Tribunal in an in-country case is whether the decision can be justified as a correct one at the date of the hearing. But that does not mean that the Tribunal is the primary decision-maker. The Tribunal's task remains that of hearing appeals against decisions actually made. The correct interpretation of s85(4) is perhaps best indicated by saying that the appellant cannot succeed by showing that he would be granted leave if he made an application on the date of the hearing: he can succeed only by showing that he would be granted leave if he made, on the date of the hearing, the same application as that which resulted in the decision under appeal. The subsection does not permit an appellant to change his case under the Immigration Rules for being allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. (That is, of course, without prejudice to the fact that s84(1) may allow the appeal to succeed on different grounds entirely.)
thanks again vinny;)vinny wrote:Probably best to include all available evidence and leave it for the judge to consider its acceptability.