Partner of a British citizen

Hello please can someone give me some advice or share they experience with me. I got married to a British citizen in July 2014 and applied for leave to remain as a married partner of a British citizen on the same day (July 2014) my tier 1 (post study work experience) expired.

The home office refused my application giving reason that I did not meet the financial requirement. They acutally refered to one of my employment which HO said that total amount I claimed to have earned from the employment was not seen to have reflected in my bank account statement. And that taking into account the total amount which reflected on my bank statement that I failed to meet the mini mum financial requirement which is 18,600.

However the amount I claimed to have earned from that emolument was true but that was before tax and shouldnt appear on my statement. The statement I submitted was incomplete which I noted down with the initial application and told the home office that I have ordered a complete statement but would arrive after I have submitted my application but should in case they which to review that they should not hesitate to contact me but they never did.

I submitted my application with my p45 and p60, a statement of earning from my employer which all confirms that the money I claimed to earn from the said employment was true.

Now I made an appeal to the first tier tribunal and my case is March 2015. I have now a letter from HRMC which confirms the amount I claimed was true and also a complete payslip which also confirms that the amount I claimed was true. I also have a complete bank statement, but this only reflect the total money I earned after tax and not before tax which is what I have used in meeting the finacially requirement.

Please have you got any advice what to expect at the tribunal and how to prepare.

You need to prepare an appellant bundle and a witness statement, and try and convince the judge that you meet all the requirements of appendix FM.

It is usually helpful to prepare a Skeleton argument prior to the hearing . This will give the judge an opportunity to assess the issues in your case, so he is familiar with them before the hearing commences.

Thank you, your input is so valuable and do I need to prepare my appellant bundle with my barrister as I have one as a representative. Also do I need to be in court together with my wife.

She doesn't work but I am meet the financial requirements based on my own earrings only

Also what is the time frame to submit an appellant bundle before hearing date, any idea pls?

If you have representative , then they should be able to see you through the process.

was seeking to assist in the false believe that you have no one seeing you through the process.

Oh ok, thank you

I rang my barrister today but was told by his office assistant that he is in court for a case today but that my bundle hasn't been sent is usually a week before the hearing. Why is this, should I insist that the bundle and witness statement be sent to the tribunal now or at least this February.

Thank you

Obie wrote:If you have representative , then they should be able to see you through the process.

The barrister I have paied but he has not submitted a witness statement, infact I haven't signed one and when I brought to his notice that the notice of hearing stated that "u must make sure your appellant bundle arrive at the tribunal 5 days prior to the hearing day" then he said i shouldn't worry that he will make sure he gets it done that the 5 day thing doesn't matter so far it's in before the day of hearing.

Please advise me on this please please my hearing is on the 27th of march

What more can i do in these circumstances, other than doing your lawyers work for him, which i am unsure is something you expect from me.

He has to prepare a witness statement, and in some cases skeleton argument.

A failure to prepare is usually a preparation to fail.

I received a court letter stating that my appeal has been allowed. The Judge said she had seen all the evidence and letter from tax office and payslips which confirmed that I meet the financial requirement.

Now my barrister is saying today that the home office is appealing to the upper tribunal seeking permission to appeal against the first tier tribunal.


The evidence is so clear that I meet the financial requirements t so can the home office be allowed permission to go to the upper tribunal with any other reason that have not been mentioned in the original refusal letter or in the first tier court?

Thanks and remain blessed?

They will only be granted permission to appeal if they have identified a material error of law in the judges decision. They can't come up with new reasons why you should be refused.

Greenie wrote:They will only be granted permission to appeal if they have identified a material error of law in the judges decision. They can't come up with new reasons why you should be refused.

Materiality of the Error comes at the stage of deciding whether or not the decision ought to be set aside.

The threshold at the permission stage is whether the Tribunal arguably misdirected itself.

Materiality is important, but not a great deal at the permission stage.

Thank you brethren for your contributions.

In the first tier tribunal decision, the judge stated that I was in court with my wife, that she has seen my pay slips and letter from employer and also letter from tax office ( independent source) confirming that I earned the same as I have claimed in the original application.

However I had an instinct at the court that the HO representative didn't like me bcos I was out spoken and my heart said to me he was taking my name down on a separate sheet of paper and would like to play stubborn. Moreso my barrister wasn't out spoken and was nearly dumb, anyway after the court case ended both the HO representative and my barrister was chatting and laughing together in the court room. Never told me what they discussed.

Please obie can u explain what u meant by materiality pls? And I can send u an email with the first tier tribunal if u would like to review it pls

Tywdall wrote:Thank you brethren for your contributions.

In the first tier tribunal decision, the judge stated that I was in court with my wife, that she has seen my pay slips and letter from employer and also letter from tax office ( independent source) confirming that I earned the same as I have claimed in the original application.

However I had an instinct at the court that the HO representative didn't like me bcos I was out spoken and my heart said to me he was taking my name down on a separate sheet of paper and would like to play stubborn. Moreso my barrister wasn't out spoken and was nearly dumb, anyway after the court case ended both the HO representative and my barrister was chatting and laughing together in the court room. Never told me what they discussed.

Please obie can u explain what u meant by materiality pls? And I can send u an email with the first tier tribunal if u would like to review it pls

Materiality means that there is a nexus between the Error and the conclusion, and if the error had not been made, then the outcome would have been different.

If the outcome would in any event had been the same, irrespective of the error, then the person will not succeed in having the decision of the FTT set aside.

Tywdall wrote:
However I had an instinct at the court that the HO representative didn't like me bcos I was out spoken and my heart said to me he was taking my name down on a separate sheet of paper and would like to play stubborn. Moreso my barrister wasn't out spoken and was nearly dumb, anyway after the court case ended both the HO representative and my barrister was chatting and laughing together in the court room. Never told me what they discussed.

Well I do have a chat with presenting officers, the nice one at least. It is perfectly normal. That does not mean I join with them to undermine a client. It helps in many case, especially in getting concession from them.

If however it seems like your rep was acting contrary to your interest, you could have asked him, what he was discussing with him, and possibly make a complaint if you feel he was conniving with the HOPO to undermine your case, added to his silence at the hearing, then that is a serious matter.

Such allegations cannot be made unless you have a smoking gun.

Tywdall wrote:However I had an instinct at the court that the HO representative didn't like me bcos I was out spoken and my heart said to me he was taking my name down on a separate sheet of paper and would like to play stubborn. Moreso my barrister wasn't out spoken and was nearly dumb, anyway after the court case ended both the HO representative and my barrister was chatting and laughing together in the court room. Never told me what they discussed.

What happens outside the court room doesn't necessarily reflect the appeal . It could just be general chit chat.

I had my Oral Hearing exactly 2 years ago (my other half's spouse visa was refused). Was a straight forward case for me and decided to take it on all by myself (long before discovering this forum so was on my own).

Same scenario in the court room. Felt the HO guy didn't like me. It is expected from the Home Office representative to argue against you as it is their job to side with the case worker's decision. I had better prepared my case with factual evidence which the HO guy couldn't argue against, even though the Judge allowed the break in the middle of the hearing (he was doing a number of cases at the same time so could go to another case during the break). This allowed the HO guy to contact his team at the office for their input but to no avail. Anyway, I knew the decision would swing my way, and the Judge even commented if I used the services of a solicitor which i replied No, and stated he was impressed with the way I had prepared my case so much so that it was also mentioned in the Judge's decision letter.

Anyway, after hearing, I had a chat with the HO guy about a few things. Just a general chat of many things as well as laughing too. not necessarily anything wrong with that. He touched on the subject of the shear number of people applying for extensions instead of ILR because people couldn't pass either the ESOL or the LIUK for the requirement (this was before the 28 October 2013 changes where only one was required). Not surprised after reading the number of threads on here. Going to be even a more expensive mistake after taking into account the newly introduced health surcharge.

Sorry for going a little bit off topic.