BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> IA188062014 [2015] UKAITUR IA188062014 (16 January 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2015/IA188062014.html Cite as: [2015] UKAITUR IA188062014 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/18806/2014
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
| Heard at Field House | Decision and Reasons Promulgated |
| On 15th January 2015 | On 16th January 2015 |
|
|
|
Before
upper tribunal judge MARTIN
Between
MR VENKAT REDDY AEMIREDDY
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr N Jeganathan (Acculegal Solicitors)
For the Respondents: Mr N Bramble (Senior Home Office Presenting Officers)
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Appellant with regard to a determination of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Boyd) promulgated on 1st October 2014 by which he dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse him leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.
2. The grounds on which permission to appeal was granted by a First-tier Tribunal Judge argue that the Judge erred in taking irrelevant factors into account, in particular that the Sponsor’s account was opened a month before the application was made when all the Appellant had to show was that he had access to the money at the date of application.
3. Secondly, the grounds argue that the fact that the Appellant’s company was bought “off the shelf” was immaterial to its being a genuine company. Thirdly, it is argued that the Judge erred in finding that the Appellant did not have a web site when there was evidence that he did and fourthly it is argued that it was irrelevant to the appeal whether the Appellant had previous experience which, in fact, he did have.
4. The main reason the Appellant‘s application was refused was because he had submitted a bank statement and letter from the bank in India which appeared to post date the application. The Secretary of State sent an email to the bank which confirmed that the account was only opened one month after the date of the application. That email was adduced as was the letter dated one month after the application was submitted. That is not what the grounds suggest, which refer to the account being opened one month before the application. The author of the grounds appears to have misread he Secretary of State’s refusal and the determination. The Appellant’s representative before me said that he had not seen the bank letter. That may be the case but the Appellant must have as he submitted it. The evidence was clear that the Appellant could not succeed. Even if the Judge had erred in other respects the errors would be immaterial therefore.
5. In any event the Judge found, as he was entitled to, that the only contract that the Appellant produced was not a reliable document.
6. The evidence before the First-tier Tribunal Judge regarding the Appellant’s website all post dates the date of application.
7. The First-tier Tribunal Judge did not fall into error and his determination stands.
8. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
Signed Date 15th January 2015
Upper Tribunal Judge Martin
