- 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
6. Reasons for the Refusal
In support of the application, the Appellant submitted a letter of employment which was relevant to the application. As a result of checks made by the British High Commission, detailed in a document verification report, the ECO was satisfied that there was high degree of probability that this was not a genuine document. The application was therefore refused in accordance with paragraph 320(21) of the Immigration Rules, which sates that entry clearnce should (normally) be refused when as applicant submits a false document in support of an application. The Appellant's application was not considered under any other provision of the Immigration Rules.
7. The Evidence
As the Respondent failed to submit a bundle, I did not have before me a copy of the document verification report referred to in the reasons for refusal or indeed the Appellant's application form with supporting documents. On appeal, the Appellant has submitted an 18 page letter (annexure A), list of enclosuress (Annexure B) and copies/originals of the documents referred to therein. These documents relate to the Appellant's employment with KKK Pvt Ltd. and M/s LLL. They include, interalia, documents confirming the existence and operating status of these companies, certificates from the managing director of KKK and LLL confirming that the letters of employment submitted by the Appellant were genuine, tax certificates, copies of letters sent and received whilst with his employers, photographs, testimonials, etcetra.
8. My Findings
I am satisfied from the voluminous evidence before me that the Appellant was genuinly employed by both KKK Pvt. Ltd. and LLL as set out in his supporting letters of employment. On the basis of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Appellant submitted a false document in support of his application. Therefore there were no grounds on which entry clerance to enter the United Kingdom should have been refused pursuant to paragraph 320(21) of the Immigration Rules. Futhermore, the Entry Clerance Officer failed to properly consider the application pursuant to prargraph 135A of the Immigration Rules. As I was not provided with a copy of the Respondent's bundle, I do not have the necessary information before me to determine whether the Appellant meets the requirements of this Rule.
9. On the totality of evidence before me, I find the Appellant has discharged the burden of proof and that the reasons given by the Respondent do not justify the refusal. Therefore the Respondant's Decision is not in accordance with the law and the applicable Immigration Rules.
Well, the paragraphs above infact sum-up my complete case very nicely, truely and briefly.Decision
10. The appeal in respect of the Immigration rules is allowed to the extent that the matter be returned to the Entry Clerance Officer to reconsider his decision pursuant to paragraph 135A of the Immigration Rules.
So the ECO is being asked to reconsider, and clearly now cannot still suggest that your documentation was false. No doubt you intended to do this anyway, but clearly you will take your copy of the appeal determination with you. And stand your ground. For example, if the ECO is still suggesting that your documentation is false, simply refer them to the finding of the Appeal Tribunal.Decision
10. The appeal in respect of the Immigration rules is allowed to the extent that the matter be returned to the Entry Clerance Officer to reconsider his decision pursuant to paragraph 135A of the Immigration Rules.