My Brother had hearing date today!

[mmc]

@ mmc, these are your points if am not wrong,


---- 48k held in your brother's sole personal account from 01/08/2012 - Dec 2012,
---- Team partner joined his account in Dec 2012,
---- 6k added on the 10th of Dec 2012 = £54k
---- Application submitted on 10th Jan 2013 with total funds of £54k in joint account.

If all the above are correct then your brother has a good chance of winning his appeal on the condition that his lawyer was able to explain clearly to the judge the ffg facts;

(1) Your brother maintenance fund need to be shown for 90 consecutive days, then prior to team member joining account, your brother's 90days maintenance with his sole name showing on the statement can be between 10/09/12 - 10/12/12 because application was submitted on 10/01/13 and statement should not be more than 1month old. So he should get a bank statement that show only his name for this period only.

(2) As team member joined account in December 2012, and application was submitted on 10/01/13 with joint account which has 50k required funds for both team members. Also let your brother get another bank statement with date 08/01/13 showing the full 50k funds before application was submitted and also both names as joint holder on the account. This should cover them as there is no law that state investment funds should be in account for 3months.

Their case would have been easy if they haven't mixed up both team member's account to show both investment funds and maintenance at the same time because some caseworkers are very incompetent and are always looking for silly mistakes on the application. Hopefully, the judge wont be as silly as the caseworker.

I hope this analysis help.

Correct!

Thanks

[mmc]

@ mmc, these are your points if am not wrong,


---- 48k held in your brother's sole personal account from 01/08/2012 - Dec 2012,
---- Team partner joined his account in Dec 2012,
---- 6k added on the 10th of Dec 2012 = £54k
---- Application submitted on 10th Jan 2013 with total funds of £54k in joint account.

If all the above are correct then your brother has a good chance of winning his appeal on the condition that his lawyer was able to explain clearly to the judge the ffg facts;

(1) Your brother maintenance fund need to be shown for 90 consecutive days, then prior to team member joining account, your brother's 90days maintenance with his sole name showing on the statement can be between 10/09/12 - 10/12/12 because application was submitted on 10/01/13 and statement should not be more than 1month old. So he should get a bank statement that show only his name for this period only.

(2) As team member joined account in December 2012, and application was submitted on 10/01/13 with joint account which has 50k required funds for both team members. Also let your brother get another bank statement with date 08/01/13 showing the full 50k funds before application was submitted and also both names as joint holder on the account. This should cover them as there is no law that state investment funds should be in account for 3months.

Their case would have been easy if they haven't mixed up both team member's account to show both investment funds and maintenance at the same time because some caseworkers are very incompetent and are always looking for silly mistakes on the application. Hopefully, the judge wont be as silly as the caseworker.

I hope this analysis help.

Appeal accepted.

Thanks

[mmc]

if He said so for whole amount which is 50900 he does not know about their own policy..if he said 900 only to have held in an account for 3 months would have been right but you seem to have already had 10 points for the maintenance.

in some previous cases or the comments made by members within this forum I noted that Home office representatives the way they deal with a case their knowledge about their own policies is insufficient so are incompetent to do what they are actually doing.

following policy you had 50,000 available to use for your business as you provided evidence it seems hard for a judge to uphold a decision made by case worker only if 50,000 controversial however as you say a word maintenance was used which leads me to conclude that your brother did not provide a separate statement money 900 to have been available for a period as 90 days or provided an evidence with a combined amount of 50,000 in addition to 900 not showing 900(specifically) separately for a period as 90 days as policy demands. a word maintenance could not have otherwise been used.

thanks..

Appeal accepted.

[babylondoner]

Appeal accepted.

are you saying that your appeal was allowed?

if yes, congrats

[mmc]

Appeal accepted.

are you saying that your appeal was allowed?

if yes, congrats

Correct.

Thanks alot.

[rehan01]

congrats


regards

Appeal accepted.

are you saying that your appeal was allowed?

if yes, congrats

Correct.

Thanks alot.

[Olasunkanmi]

@ mmc, congrat to ur bro, but do update the forum with ur bro case so we can learn more from the case.

Its a special case which only good solicitors can handle.

[mmc]

@ mmc, congrat to ur bro, but do update the forum with ur bro case so we can learn more from the case.

Its a special case which only good solicitors can handle.

If you read this post from the beginning then you will get full updates ie reason of refusal.

Immigration judge said, that HO used incorrect rules, which necessitated this appeal and Fee need to be refunded to the appellant.


Thanks

[Olasunkanmi]

@ mmc, I saw d refusal reason, but just asking dat u should keep us posted of any new development on d case

[mmc]

@ mmc, I saw d refusal reason, but just asking dat u should keep us posted of any new development on d case

I will update once we get the documents. Sure


Thanks

[Dayyurite]

the reasons for refusal:

1. You have stated that you have access to funds of £50,000 being made available by Mr X.
As evidence of this you have provided
1. A bank letter from First Bank
2. A Letter from Legal representative

However, the bank letter is not acceptable because it does not state the full contact details including Landlines telephone number for third part.

The letter from a legal representative that you have submitted is not acceptable as it is being used as a third party declaration and a legal representative letter at the same time. Separate documentation is required from the third party and from the legal representative. the letter provided does not the relationship of the third party to yourself. is is further unacceptable because it confirms that the declaration from third party Mr X is valid. When a declaration from Mr X has not been made.

No declaration from Legal representative in the UK has been supplied to establish that your signature on the letter that purports to act as the 3rd party declaration is valid, as you were not present at the time third party signed the purported declaration, as specified nuder paragraph 41 -SD(b)(!!) of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules

Please help

[mmc]

the reasons for refusal:

1. You have stated that you have access to funds of £50,000 being made available by Mr X.
As evidence of this you have provided
1. A bank letter from First Bank
2. A Letter from Legal representative

However, the bank letter is not acceptable because it does not state the full contact details including Landlines telephone number for third part.

The letter from a legal representative that you have submitted is not acceptable as it is being used as a third party declaration and a legal representative letter at the same time. Separate documentation is required from the third party and from the legal representative. the letter provided does not the relationship of the third party to yourself. is is further unacceptable because it confirms that the declaration from third party Mr X is valid. When a declaration from Mr X has not been made.

No declaration from Legal representative in the UK has been supplied to establish that your signature on the letter that purports to act as the 3rd party declaration is valid, as you were not present at the time third party signed the purported declaration, as specified nuder paragraph 41 -SD(b)(!!) of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules

Please help

wo wo wo... No this wasn't our case. If you read our refusal carefully you will find out what was the reason.