Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) applications and false representation
Khalid & others (Ealing, West London and Hammersmith College) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 295 (IAC) (01 August 2011): This case concerned three appellants (Pakistani nationals) whose applications for Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Leave to Remain in the UK had been refused by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD).One of the appellants had a wife and daughter whose applications for leave to remain in the UK were dependent on his obtaining leave to remain on a post-study work visa.
In support of their applications, the appellants submitted what seemed to be postgraduate diplomas from Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College (EHWLC). The SSHD had refused each application under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules, on the basis that the qualifications claimed were false. This meant that the appellants had failed to show they were entitled to the requisite number of points under the Points Based System to entitle them to Tier 1 status.
The appellants provided witness statements and what seemed to be coursework to corroborate the certificates they produced in support of their applications for leave to remain in the UK. However, these were all found to be false documents. The certificates the appellants had produced were equally false, as witnesses from the college affirmed. Furthermore, the college had an extensive and reliable system which recorded every student at the college. The appellants were not on this system.
The Court cited AA (Nigeria) [2009] EWCA Civ 773, in which the Court of Appeal held that dishonesty or deception, even though not necessarily deception by the applicant herself/himself is needed to find a ‘false representation' as a ground for mandatory refusal of leave to remain. The burden of proof was on the appellants to show they had attended the college (under paragraph 245ZX of the immigration rules). The standard of proof was a balance of probabilities.
In light of the evidence heard on the false certificates and assignments produced by the appellants, and the fact that the college had no trace of their attendance, the Court found that the SSHD's refusal under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules was ‘sound and manifestly in accordance with the law'.
There were no Article 8 (right to family life) European Convention of Human Rights concerns, except in the case of the appellant whose wife and daughter were with him in the UK. The Court found that there was no breach of Article 8 because the family could return to Pakistan without any interference to their family life. Applying ZH (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4, it would be in the child's best interests to remain with her parents because of her young age. There was no evidence that the family would be unable to re-establish themselves in Pakistan. The decision to refuse leave to remain to the appellants was proportionate with regard to family life in each case.
For further information or for a case specific evaluation, please contact us on 0207 569 3035 or alternatively at info@ergensharif.co.uk .
In support of their applications, the appellants submitted what seemed to be postgraduate diplomas from Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College (EHWLC). The SSHD had refused each application under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules, on the basis that the qualifications claimed were false. This meant that the appellants had failed to show they were entitled to the requisite number of points under the Points Based System to entitle them to Tier 1 status.
The appellants provided witness statements and what seemed to be coursework to corroborate the certificates they produced in support of their applications for leave to remain in the UK. However, these were all found to be false documents. The certificates the appellants had produced were equally false, as witnesses from the college affirmed. Furthermore, the college had an extensive and reliable system which recorded every student at the college. The appellants were not on this system.
The Court cited AA (Nigeria) [2009] EWCA Civ 773, in which the Court of Appeal held that dishonesty or deception, even though not necessarily deception by the applicant herself/himself is needed to find a ‘false representation' as a ground for mandatory refusal of leave to remain. The burden of proof was on the appellants to show they had attended the college (under paragraph 245ZX of the immigration rules). The standard of proof was a balance of probabilities.
In light of the evidence heard on the false certificates and assignments produced by the appellants, and the fact that the college had no trace of their attendance, the Court found that the SSHD's refusal under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules was ‘sound and manifestly in accordance with the law'.
There were no Article 8 (right to family life) European Convention of Human Rights concerns, except in the case of the appellant whose wife and daughter were with him in the UK. The Court found that there was no breach of Article 8 because the family could return to Pakistan without any interference to their family life. Applying ZH (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4, it would be in the child's best interests to remain with her parents because of her young age. There was no evidence that the family would be unable to re-establish themselves in Pakistan. The decision to refuse leave to remain to the appellants was proportionate with regard to family life in each case.
For further information or for a case specific evaluation, please contact us on 0207 569 3035 or alternatively at info@ergensharif.co.uk .
Source...