Post
by nonspecifics » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:24 am
Any updates to this case?
The OP's last message said the appeal was allowed because the first appeal did not consider her human rights. Does this mean it is going to go to a second tier tribunal and is to be judged again?
Or does it mean that the OP has won the appeal and has now been given permission to stay as the Other family member of her brother?
-----------------------------------
@rachellynn1972. I agree that it is best not to judge anyone on here. This is a discussion forum, so we should feel free to discuss immigration issues here without coming under personal attack from other members.
So, thank you for your positive statements to encourage harmony and goodwill in this forum.
I also respect your opinion, that you think I did not make any helpful suggestions. I fully support your right to criticise what is said in a post. That's not a personal attack, judging or ordering anyone to stay out of a discussion, so it is fine.
Personally, I feel I did make suggestions of practical use:
"If you have no right to work now, then keep evidence your brother is supporting you financially now. You will need proof of bank transfers from his account to yours or bills paid by him."
"Try to emphasise the physical documentary proof like birth certificates, receipts of financial support."
"Try to make positive statements explaining the evidence to prove your case rather than criticising and blaming anyone."
-----------------------
I also discussed how UKBA and the Home Office DO judge cases, they DO cast aspersions about a person's honesty and lack of reliability to undermine their evidence at tribunals too.
This is not because they are attacking an individual person, as such. It is normal legal practice ( of course, it can be upsetting if you are the person whose character is being attacked - for you it is personal) but that's how it is. That's just how the legal system works in any criminal or civil law cases in the UK.
Immigration Tribunals are part of civil law. UK law is adverserial in nature. In other words lawyers do attack evidence and attack the credibility of witnesses to undermine the evidence given by them. If you go to a Tribunal, to some extent you are "On Trial".
I think it is only being realistic to make applicants aware of this, so they can understand that and build a case on physical evidence - not just on personal assertions - especially if the person's reliablility as a witness can be undermined.
It is also the applicant's or appellant's responsibility to prove their case first and that requires evidence that supports what the person says.
For example, if you say you are brother and sister, UKBA want birth certificates as evidence. If you say you financially support someone, UKBA want proof you have the money to support someone and proof you are giving or spending some of that money on the other person.
For the OP I suggested supply physical evidence, for example, receipts of financial support and birth certificates.
We cannot tell what other specific evidence to present, as we do not know what other evidence she has to offer.
Someone obviously had a problem with me mentioning possibly negative aspects of her case; but I was not judging her; I was not attacking her. If her case was so straightforward and clear, with no negative aspects, then why did she not win it before?
I was trying to help her by telling her how, in the real world, the Home Office and UKBA could be looking at her application, so she can then understand how to present as strong a case as possible that is hard for them to undermine.
