Maintenance Rule - Appeal Allowed

[Selvyn]

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

[jagdish_10]

My name is jagdish ..i read your post, really encouraging, i have my appeal on 21st of this month that is the coming friday,
i have been rejected on the basis of maintanance of funds were i was short for five days . details of my case are

1. i applied for the visa on 5th of june
2. got rejected and got back my papers on 26th june
3. appealed on 14th of july which was the last date mentioned on the appeal papers sent by the home office when rejected

documents i sent :
1. statements from march 5th to 11th march ( no 800 pounds)
2. 11th march to 9th of april (800 all the days)
3. 9th to april to 11th of may (800 all the days)
4. 11th of may to 5th of june (800 all the days)

documents sent with appeal:
1. all the statements above
2. statements until date with 800 pounds on all the days
3. maintainance of 3120 pounds in indian account from 2nd of june to until now (its a joint account with my gaurdian and its a fixed deposit)

my argument is
1. i am guilty that i have been short for five days
2. my statement starts from 11th of very month to the 11th of next month
so started maintaining from 11th of march ...and i have maintained it until now , still 800 pounds is there in my account and more than that i have 3000 pounds in fixed deposit in India.
3. have permanent job earning a minimum of 780 per month
4. law about this maintainance is to just show that i can maintain myself and all this evidence is a proof that i can maintain myself here
5. and i cant apply for psw from india since i am applying for transition from igs to psw which is not possible
6. have paid loads of money for my studies to come here and willl be unfair for this shortage of maintainance i have been rejected and send back

Are there any points of the above that i should not use and are there any other points that i can use to help my appeal

[Diokpa]

Congrats Selvyn and thanks for your post. I didn't know one could ask for direction in the implementation process. I guess we learn something new daily. All the best

[monday]

HI
Congtrats man

[nemath0419]

hi congrats man...u proved the statement. " nothing is impossible "

[sarah_j_attaullah@hotmail]

Hi thr,

Thankyou so much for putting ur details here , as i have the exact same case and i am awaiting hearing.
hopefully it works in my case as well.I have also made strong arguments .also can you plz give me ur case ref number so that i can quote.
Plz do send me as it wud be really helpful.

Your case has given me a real good hope.I myself has a legal background and would like to continue here.

Looking forward for your reply.

Regards
Sarah

[madeabigmistake]

Hello Selvyn,

I am happy to hear your positive result and it does give hope!

I was hoping that you could take a moment to possibly give your logical opinion? I will of course, continue with my own research on this subject.

Here is my refusal issue: For the 3 months prior to my application for the PSW from the IGS I clearly did not have the funds necessary in my personal account to cover the £800 for myself and £533 for my child. Not to sound stupid, I really didn't read clearly and assumed that I would be able to enter into the application my parents bank statements (showing clear funds and funds given to me) and my childs' fathers statements (to show he has the funds for her) both with statements that the funds were available to me at any time. I assumed this, because this is what I was able to do in the past.

Now reading the rules on "loan", I feel that it can be construed as ambiguous in the sense that it doesn't say an "official loan". This is what I intend to argue at my appeal (which I haven't put in my AIT yet). I intend to argue that these funds were readily available to me as a loan (but records show that I am given monthly funds from both sources when I need them). Though, I understand I can be shot down that the documents were not in my name. But - why would anyone just have a loan 'waiting' for them when they don't even know they'll need it? I have been in this country for 3 1/2 years and how could I get a loan from my home country (USA) when I don't have a job there? How am I to get a loan in this country when I am not 'resident'? You see the sense in all this.

From reading all the other posts on this site, it sounds as if there has been no room for discretion on the part of the HO. Clearly, I didn't follow the rule of the funds being in my personal account.

By the way, you had a follow up argument which was to show your employment, etc. From reading the other posts...this didn't seem to matter at all.

Any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. I'm feeling a bit desperate as you can imagine!

All the best,
Deb

[ent7907]

I think it would be helpful to everyone if immigration case numbers were posted too (e.g. IA/XXX/XXX009), determinations on relevant cases would be easy to find on the AIT website in future.

[immigrationuk2009]

hi

guys you missing the main point.There are transitions arrangement till 1 OCT 2009 so you don't need to keep money for 3 months and if refused you can win on this sole reason.

So must appeal on transit arrangements and have good chance of winning.

UK_Banned_Member

[promise44]

@ Selvyn- amazing result. Surely gives us hope. Thank you for posting.

Immigration 2009 can you post a link that supports what you say. So others can quote it.

[madeabigmistake]

Yes, please post this link. I'm not sure this is valid as so many people on this board have been under transitional agreements. I am going to see an immigration advisor today and will ask about this argument. I will post back later.

One thing I'd like to add is how confusing the rules can be. I'd like to think I'm educated, but I misinterpreted the rules too many times!

I feel like not enough emphasis was made on the 'finance' change - especially to those of us who have already been filing for visas in the past. Also, there should be much discretion used for those of us who have already been on the IGS visa (or other types of visas for that matter) and have been living legally and paying taxes and taking no recourse to public funds (which they know about!). But, alas, they are not using any discretion - which I think may be a way of boosting their numbers to show they have been getting rid of 'illegal immigrants' since we are the easiest to go. (no asylum or discrimination appeals).

Just my thoughts. Will let you know about transition agreements if I get it later today.

Good luck all of us!

[madeabigmistake]

hi

guys you missing the main point.There are transitions arrangement till 1 OCT 2009 so you don't need to keep money for 3 months and if refused you can win on this sole reason.

So must appeal on transit arrangements and have good chance of winning.

UK_Banned_Member

I went and saw an advisor today and I decided against legal representation on this as it's way too costly. But, I did ask about this point with the transitional agreements - and as I thought, the advisor was sure this does not extend to the Maintenance Rule. The transitional agreement only extends to the points already awarded for education, etc. (Meaning, so you don't have to send in you certificate of awards etc.) If you have seen something written somewhere else, then please do post it for further reading.

All the best

[ukmigrate.com]

Maintenance is indeed a very contentious issue right now. There was a case recently by one of our barristers where he argued this point regarding having an overdraft facility before 5 immigration judges. 1 judge accepted the argument and 4 did not. Also some barristers have argued the rule of maintenence is not doctrined by statute, in legal terms it merely carries the wieght of caseworker internal guidance. this argument has also been only accepted by 1 judge out of 5.

The maintenance story continues !!

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

[ukmigrate.com]

transtional arrangements for maintenance expired earlier this year - your advice is good, but 6 months out of date!

hi

guys you missing the main point.There are transitions arrangement till 1 OCT 2009 so you don't need to keep money for 3 months and if refused you can win on this sole reason.

So must appeal on transit arrangements and have good chance of winning.

UK_Banned_Member

[madeabigmistake]

Maintenance is indeed a very contentious issue right now. There was a case recently by one of our barristers where he argued this point regarding having an overdraft facility before 5 immigration judges. 1 judge accepted the argument and 4 did not. Also some barristers have argued the rule of maintenence is not doctrined by statute, in legal terms it merely carries the wieght of caseworker internal guidance. this argument has also been only accepted by 1 judge out of 5.

The maintenance story continues !!

Hi Ukmigrate...where is this statute on maintenance rule?
Thanks

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

[ukmigrate.com]

There is no statute - thats the point !!

Maintenance is indeed a very contentious issue right now. There was a case recently by one of our barristers where he argued this point regarding having an overdraft facility before 5 immigration judges. 1 judge accepted the argument and 4 did not. Also some barristers have argued the rule of maintenence is not doctrined by statute, in legal terms it merely carries the wieght of caseworker internal guidance. this argument has also been only accepted by 1 judge out of 5.

The maintenance story continues !!

Hi Ukmigrate...where is this statute on maintenance rule?
Thanks

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

[madeabigmistake]

There is no statute - thats the point !!

Oh, duh! Gotcha. I'm just reading a blog about third party support, which is actually my issue. I've always sent in bank statements with a letter of support from my parents and my child's father. They rejected this time; my appeal argument was going to be somewhat based on them accepting this form of support for the IGS, etc. Any ideas? Thanks!

Maintenance is indeed a very contentious issue right now. There was a case recently by one of our barristers where he argued this point regarding having an overdraft facility before 5 immigration judges. 1 judge accepted the argument and 4 did not. Also some barristers have argued the rule of maintenence is not doctrined by statute, in legal terms it merely carries the wieght of caseworker internal guidance. this argument has also been only accepted by 1 judge out of 5.

The maintenance story continues !!

Hi Ukmigrate...where is this statute on maintenance rule?
Thanks

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

[ggallard]

Hi Selvyn,

Currently i got the similar situation. Did you use legal advise?

Help please.

Memo

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

[makon]

Please what is your appeal reference number. I may want to quote it in an appeal I am working on.

Thanks

[ggallard]

I meant i got a problem to solve which involve the similar situation so i don't know what to do. I got refused my application because of a short fall on my bank statements it went below £800 but i got at the same time an overdraft of more than £1000.

Help on advise (legal or not).

Its amazing how the HO is making lots of money. I got a good job and PhD, i passed all the point on education, english, experience, salary. The only one was because the £800 went below for 3 or 4 days in one month (one of the last 4 bank statements).

This is absolutely bad, we are not illegal immigrants, we pay lots of tax and just because this small thing they are charging £820 for the application. It looks like the HO is stealing money (£820) just for checking the application.


Help!

Please what is your appeal reference number. I may want to quote it in an appeal I am working on.

Thanks

[RAIDER1]

[quote="Selvyn"]Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

Hi Selvyn, 1st of all, congrats to you. The HO refused my visa as well, which is on the similar ground as yours. As you said, it is really disheartening and I almost give up till I saw your post. It gives me a little hope as I am about to make an appeal. Can you please kindly give me your case reference number as I can quote it with my appeal. I am really looking forward to hear from you as it would be a great help. Thank you.

[Wehi]

Hi All,

I've just had my appeal, it seemed to go really well, the home office didn't turn up at all and the judge was very sympathetic.

However he said I will get the decision in 2 - 3 weeks and I was wondering if this is normal or not (and thus possibly bad)?

I'd appreciate it if those who have already been through the AIT process could let me know if they got the decision on the day or if they had to wait for it in writing?

Thanks heaps!

[reddit]

@WEhli: Most judge will wait 2-3 weeks for the decision to be made they have a right to reserve judgement and that is what they do.

@ Selvyn: could you please provide us with your case name as it is good case law and could be used as precedent.

[Wehi]

@WEhli: Most judge will wait 2-3 weeks for the decision to be made they have a right to reserve judgement and that is what they do.

Thanks Reddit, that's a load of stress off for me.

In my case I had the funds, but they were held in a different kind of account (brokerage account) and the home office declined me on the basis that it had to be a chequing or savings account.

So my advice to others would be if you have the cash do make sure its in the most vanilla bank account possible as if there's any confusion at all on the part of the case workers they seem to just decline it!

[Wehi]

Just an update on this for the benefit of the board: my appeal was allowed (hurray!).

The determination was dated exactly 3 weeks after the hearing - so if anyone is waiting like I was then don't despair as it can take a little while and a delay doesn't necessitate bad news.

I have to wait another 12 days now to find out if the home office will appeal it.