Tier 1 Entrepreneur - changes from Nov 19th

Well, just as I've been saying for a few months now, changes ARE coming in and as soon as Nov 19th.

Here's the extract from the Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules (Oct 29th):



Tier 1 (Entrepreneur)

• We are making minor and technical changes to the evidential requirements for entrepreneurs to respond to partner feedback and to prevent abuse. In particular, we are:

o making an amendment to the genuine entrepreneur test for initial applications so that the Secretary of State can make an assessment of any previous investment made by an applicant into a UK business, in order to be satisfied that this investment was genuine.

o amending the rules on acceptable evidence of funding and investment to:

 clarify that the restriction on applicants investing in other businesses does not apply to those which the migrant is running as self-employed or as a director;

 clarify the evidence required from applicants where they have invested by way of share capital, or by way of a director’s loan; and

 remove the requirement for applicants with third party funds from a UK government department or an approved seed fund to provide additional legal documentation to further validate this arrangement.

o making changes to clarify the requirements for evidence of continuous trading, with specific amendments to the rules concerning the ownership of web domain names and the use of rolling contracts. Additionally, the reference to ‘trading online’ has been removed from the Immigration Rules, as this has caused confusion for applicants; and

o clarifying the evidence that applicants must provide to demonstrate they have created jobs at extension stage. This responds to the introduction of ‘Real Time’ PAYE reporting to HM Revenue & Customs, and will give applicants more flexibility in terms of the evidence they can provide.




The one in red is especially worrying. It almost sounds as if only people who already previously invested in the UK economy will be able to apply for the Entrepreneur Visa!! This would essentially mean that the Entrepreneur programme is effectively closed for 99% of applicants - very convenient way to do so by the Government if closing this route without too much "noise" was their goal!!

Less than 3 weeks to apply on existing rules... Very challenging but still possible. A few business opportunities are available for those willing to join an existing business - get in touch if interested.

Julia

Let's see what they come up with.when the guidence will be updated

Many Thanks for the information.

Could you please supply the link of this statement of change

Many Thanks for the information.

Could you please supply the link of this statement of change

Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) • We are making minor and technical changes to the evidential requirements for entrepreneurs to respond to partner feedback and to prevent abuse.In particular, we are: o making an amendment to the genuine entrepreneur test for initial applications so that the Secretary of State can make an assessment of any previous investment made by an applicant into a UK business, in order to be satisfied that this investment was genuine (What is the effect of this??? What does it actually mean, experts to comment plz)
o amending the rules on acceptable evidence of funding and investment to: Page 11 of 19

hi mates,

well by reading it carefully, by no means, it says that you have to invest any prior amounts in UK whilst you make an application for initial entry clearance. To my understanding it means, that if you have already made any previous investments and are claiming points for it, HO will carry out some further genuine entrepreneur tests. well, this is purely my way of interpreting. sorry if i have hurt any expert, please now offer your valuable comments and be fast as it would help many.

Importantly, i would say that HO has not make any negative amendments rather have incorporated some positive things for the first time.......am i right?

waiting for fast comments of all the experts.

best regards

Hi Julia!
I am thinking to apply in near future as i am ready with all the basic requirements for Entrepreneur initially entry clearance visa, i am just waiting for my investment funds to sit in my accounts for consecutive 90 days.
Now the recent amendment you were referring to and highlighted in red color are a worrying signal for me. Although it doesn't clearly reflect that you really need to have any prior investment in UK before applying for entry clearance. Please put me wise as what would you recommend to me at this stage. it is important to mention that i am a single applicant with approximately 220000 GBP investment amount ready with me other than required maintenance funds and i was all set to invest in an existing construction business. And i was arriving UK for this purpose on 3rd November. It is again very important to mention that i have already invested 58000 GBP in a food chain in Bolton for which i was not planning to claim any points as business is yet not transferred in my name. Now if you consider that any previous investments are going to make any huge difference with effect from 19 November 2015. should i get that business transferred in my name immediately? ( i cannot apply before 20th January as my investments came into my accounts on 20th October 2015. I have complete genuine proof of all these funds. However my maintenance funds are in my another account since 28 July 2015 consecutively)

Your quick reply will be highly appreciated please.

Best Regards,
Pakistan 1

Hi Pakistan1

I think you're slightly misreading that bit in red. The way it is phrased, it means that they will check previous investments in the UK done by Tier 1 Visa Applicant in the past to assess whether the applicant is a genuine entrepreneur and if the investments were genuine. Which is total nonsense really... What if someone is a genuine entrepreneur but have been investing in their home country? Or they are just a student with a brilliant idea?!

But we all know that Home Office has come up with silly ideas in the past, let's see what they say in a few weeks. It looks like they will introduce what they call "Minor" changes without much notice now (in a few weeks time) and some profound changes next time (they normally do it twice a year, November / April)

These "minor" changes might badly affect most of the prospective applicants - previous investments, or evidence of continuous trading, or annual reporting on your business - and these changes are coming very shortly.

If you are looking to apply in January, the changes will affect you. It's difficult to advise really - the decision is yours... You can wait, you can apply before Nov 19th with 3rd party sponsoring etc. The only thing for certain is that all changes will make the application process much tougher...

Good luck!

Whoever is looking to apply for Tier q Entrepreneur visa, should find some time and read the almost 200 page MAC report )link shared in other posts here) - it's a fascinating reading! Really good analysis of how the program works (or in fact doesn't work...) and some shocking statistics on how it is abused. No wonder they want to fix it!!

At the very least, read section 4 and also Conclusions and Recommendations - this will you give you an idea of what big change might be expected.

To pick up main points:

1. They make a lot of emphasis on recommending Government to encourage only "innovative" business plans (and make specific reference to "restaurants, retail shops, franchises and export/ import operations" saying that they shouldn't qualify). At some point in the report they say that someone who comes to the UK and opens a corner shop/ take away just to make their living cannot be called an entrepreneur, because an entrepreneur is someone who brings new ideas, takes risks and makes significant/ disruptive changes to the market they come into.

2. They suggest having a Committee Panel which will be assessing business plans (imagine how long will your application take) OR even only giving Visas to those applicants who manage to secure support/ endorsement from organisations like Innovate UK or Business Incubators/ Accelerators. This would effectively mean that only truly innovative business plans will be approved and only entrepreneurs who can add big value to the UK will be allowed in.

3. They also recommend that an entrepreneur is regularly (annually) reporting to the Home Office and /or that HO regularly checks company' trading activities (can be checked by whether the company pays taxes etc). In fact, they've done this exercise of matching Entrepreneur Visa applicants records to the CompaniesHouse data and results were shocking.



Overall, p. 8.8 of the report starts by MAC saying this - strong argument that the current Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) visa route should be substantially reformed.

Here are a few abstracts from Chapter 4:

4.16 We received evidence that a large proportion of businesses created through the entrepreneur route appear to be relatively low skilled and with limited potential to grow. The Home Office provided us with an immigration intelligence assessment which suggested that the route is dominated by lowskilled businesses in the retail, wholesale and catering industries. Some partners raised concerns that the route is being used by entrepreneurs to set up a number of low-growth food franchises which have limited scope for innovation and are not particularly scalable businesses.


4.18 In its evidence, the Home Office provided the findings from a recent exercise completed to match a specific cohort of Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants with HMRC records. Of those Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants that were analysed, they found that only one per cent of migrants switching from student visas and five per cent of those switching from the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route went on to establish a business in a highly skilled sector. Over a third were found to be working in regular employment in breach of their visa conditions (predominantly in the retail and catering industry), whilst over half either had no economic activity during the tax year examined or were not found in HMRC records. The Home Office also said that, in a random sample of 200 extension cases examined, 70 per cent described entirely different businesses to those which had been proposed at the initial application stage.

4.19 Whilst it is acknowledged that many early-stage businesses need to evolve, the changes in business proposals were striking in many cases. In particular, the Home Office findings indicated that in 38 per cent of cases the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant had established a business in a different sector compared to their original business proposal, and 44 per cent of cases appeared to involve migrants taking over existing businesses, after initially claiming they were going to start a business of their own. The prevalence of such fundamental changes in business plan clearly undermines the credibility of the entrepreneur route; evolving a business to adapt to a changing market is often necessary, but the scale of the changes identified are not suggestive of high quality entrepreneurship.

4.27 Those granted initial leave to enter or remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant have the option to extend their leave in the category after three years, but we were told that relatively few apply for extension. In their evidence, the Home Office told us that they had randomly sampled 100 cases granted entry clearance between 2008 and 2012, which would have been due for extension. They found that 73 per cent of those granted an initial period of leave to enter or remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant had failed to apply to extend their leave within the category. Six per cent had switched into other immigration categories. Overall, only 22 per cent of applicants successfully extended their stay as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant.

4.29 The Home Office further provided us with an assessment of the extent to which migrants granted leave to remain in the UK under the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route, after changes to the Immigration Rules in July 2014, are meeting the intentions of the route. We were told that Home Office research, using HMRC data, found that a significant number of those who were granted an initial period of leave or an extension of leave in the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route between 11 July 2014 and 31 May 2015 were subsequently found not to be meeting the criteria and were, therefore, not meeting the intentions of the route. The Home Office said only 28 per cent of those assessed were found to be registered as a company director with HMRC.

4.30 It was also suggested by the Home Office that the lack of evidence of economic activity from those switching in-country from Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) indicates widespread non-compliance amongst that cohort.

And there is lots and lots more - really worth reading the full version!!

Hi Julia

Thank u for the info. My friend sent you a PM, please reply

Sorry, it looks like I'm not authorised to read private messages... You can try and find me on LinkedIn / FB - xxxxxxxxxxxx, or email me: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Note As this is a public forum, I have removed all personal identifying details from your post so as to maintain your privacy & security. It is also inappropriate to solicit such contacts.

Ref forum T&Cs (click)
- Board Moderator

Hmm... I guess moderators don't like forum members getting in touch. Ask any questions here - I'll try to help

Hi Julia,
You are required to have made up to 10 posts before you are allowed to read and send PMs

HI,
I am a new member and this is my first post. As I do not see any link where I can submit a new post, let me put my query here,

1. I applied for second time tier-1 application ( Transitional 50K route) on 21st September 2015 within 28 days period of all appeal right exhausted ( final rejection from Upper Tribunal).

2. My visa was refused on 19th October 2015 saying I have not provided sufficient documents which proves advertisement was continuous before and after 11th July 2014.

In fact I provided many advertisement before and after 11th July 2014.

I was given right for administrative review.

I applied for administrative review on time explaining where case worker has made error in sufficiently considering documents.

My company is a member of a trading body of Technology Company. Through them, I approached an endorsement partner of UKBA (for Tier-1 Talent Visa). With My request, they Contacted high officials of Home office
a) First before I applied for administrative review, explaining my business is genuine and to consider my case positively. Home office replied saying, I should apply for Admin Review on time.

b) After applying for admin review on time, I approach again that endorsement partner of UKBA to notify high officials of UKBA to look into my case from holistic point of view and to consider all the documents provided. They have just send me an email saying, they have been sent a mail by UKBA saying,
'' My admin review' permission was given by mistake. As my appeal right for first application was fully exhausted by appeal process, even though I applied for second time within 28 days,
they said I do not have any right of administrative review.

They have not given me any legal grounds as it is a informal answer to their Tier 1 endorsement partner.
I am waiting for refusal letter for administrative review which may say,
we apologize, it was a mistake but you do not have a administrative review right.

I am not sure under which law they are saying this.

My solicitor and Barristers are working on it.

Just to give another piece of information, at the time of my second time application, I gave old photo. So I was sent a letter saying your application is invalid ( not refused) and gave me ten days time to send new photograph which I did next day of getting letter.
My question here is
Q 1. Is there any law, by which they are saying if appeal right is exhausted for first application, there will not be any appeal right for second application.

Q2. Even if there is any law like this, that if appeal right is exhausted for first application, there will not be any appeal right for second application. then how they can say I do not have administrative review right for second application. As administrative review is kept as an option to rectify case working error. How much logical is this that even if they have done an error, there will not be any option to correct it. If that was the case, UKBA Should not have even given me right for second time application.

As I have benifitted from this website in many ways, I would like to share refusal grounds.

1. They said, Leaflets is not accepted as it was not published locally or internationally.

2. I provided a gumtree advertisement which showed posted 500 days ago as it was posted on 7th May 2014 and another advertisement with the same ID which was rebumped on 10th September 2015 and printed on 13th September 2015 showing posted 3 days ago. Also I sent them an email confirmation from Gumtree Customer Service, which confirmed, this advertisement with the Id 484484884 was initially posted on 7th May 2014 and last bumped up 10th Septmber 2015. Case worker said, it is not clear whether first advertisement posted on 1st May 2014 was live until 10th September 2015.

3. I supplied evidence of having business website, case worker said domain name is not registered on my name. But the website clearly showing, this website is copyright to my company name. The domain was registered by a person of a company with which I have strategic partnership. Contract between that company and my company clearly showed that company give me IT support and maintain my website. And the domain name ownership lies solely with my company. Case worker did not say anything about these evidences.

4. I provided two invoices from paypal which showed paypal invoiced me for facebook advertisement. Case worker, said, even though I submitted invoices for facebook advert but I did not submit facebook page itself. Facebook page link was clearly shown on the business leaflet supplied, case worker could have just visited that link. But she did not.

5. I provided another advertisement from Freeindex which was printed on 2nd september 2015 and the document was showing advert last updated November 2013. It was a clear proof that that advertisment was live from NOv 2013 until at least 2nd september 2015. Case worker did not say anything about this advertisement.

Even though I could have made admin review grounds myself, still I hired one solicitor firms and two high qualified english barristers to write grounds. Later on, I took arguments from all the grounds made by solicitors and barristers and within 1000 words, I submitted a nice Admin review.

I was highly expecting a positive response. Just to make it more sure, I lobbied with trade body to reach high officials of UKBA to convince them, I have flourishing and established business which has paid over 20000 pound value added tax, corporation tax and employee tax without even having a entreprenurhship visa as it was refused in 2014 april.

My solicitor said, he has done 195 tier 1 applications but he has not seen such a harsh decisions. I provided so many documents

1. Bank statement for two years which showed £300 K turnover
2. Reference from five big telecom companies with whom I am trading. These companies are over ten years old and multi million pounds international business.

3. Reference from another telecom company which is based in Canary wharf and which is very big saying they are considering to make strategic partnership with my company.

4. HMRC letter confirming 20 k VAT PAID.

5. Patent registration of the logo of my trade name.

6. Insurance documents

7. Trade body registratons

8. Five service contracts with telecom companies

9. Letter from bank showing I am the sole controller/signatory of business finance.

10. Email Correspondence with supplier and customers

11. Business plan

12. Market Research

13. Fund available personal account 50K over 90 days, Business account 40K over 90 days. Investment shown 100k within a year - Even though I was requirefd to show only 50K available fund or investment.

I believe, my second time application is refused only because of the information they have of my first application which was refused on credibility and genuinity grounds.

a) I applied within one month of business registration. so I did not have sufficient document.
b) My business plan was written within 2-3 hours. I was not even satisfied that was a proper business plan. I was not careful enough and thought submitting business plan was not even mandatory in NOvember 2013.
c) In appeal hearing, judge found, my business partner statement and my statement do not match for few questions even though most of the question matched. HOme office have that appeal refusal grounds, which was very negative. But that judgement also said, if my business is really flourishing, I should consider submitting fresh application. By law Judge could not take new documents into consideration.


After providing so many documents, if my visa has not succeeded, now you think, if you apply second time with first time refusals, could you be able to submit documents like mine before you waste your money.

This time I applied alone. First time in a team.

JuliaTE1 wrote:Here are a few abstracts from Chapter 4:

4.16 We received evidence that a large proportion of businesses created through the entrepreneur route appear to be relatively low skilled and with limited potential to grow. The Home Office provided us with an immigration intelligence assessment which suggested that the route is dominated by lowskilled businesses in the retail, wholesale and catering industries. Some partners raised concerns that the route is being used by entrepreneurs to set up a number of low-growth food franchises which have limited scope for innovation and are not particularly scalable businesses.


4.18 In its evidence, the Home Office provided the findings from a recent exercise completed to match a specific cohort of Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants with HMRC records. Of those Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants that were analysed, they found that only one per cent of migrants switching from student visas and five per cent of those switching from the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route went on to establish a business in a highly skilled sector. Over a third were found to be working in regular employment in breach of their visa conditions (predominantly in the retail and catering industry), whilst over half either had no economic activity during the tax year examined or were not found in HMRC records. The Home Office also said that, in a random sample of 200 extension cases examined, 70 per cent described entirely different businesses to those which had been proposed at the initial application stage.

4.19 Whilst it is acknowledged that many early-stage businesses need to evolve, the changes in business proposals were striking in many cases. In particular, the Home Office findings indicated that in 38 per cent of cases the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant had established a business in a different sector compared to their original business proposal, and 44 per cent of cases appeared to involve migrants taking over existing businesses, after initially claiming they were going to start a business of their own. The prevalence of such fundamental changes in business plan clearly undermines the credibility of the entrepreneur route; evolving a business to adapt to a changing market is often necessary, but the scale of the changes identified are not suggestive of rubbish quality entrepreneurship.

4.27 Those granted initial leave to enter or remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant have the option to extend their leave in the category after three years, but we were told that relatively few apply for extension. In their evidence, the Home Office told us that they had randomly sampled 100 cases granted entry clearance between 2008 and 2012, which would have been due for extension. They found that 73 per cent of those granted an initial period of leave to enter or remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant had failed to apply to extend their leave within the category. Six per cent had switched into other immigration categories. Overall, only 22 per cent of applicants successfully extended their stay as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant.

4.29 The Home Office further provided us with an assessment of the extent to which migrants granted leave to remain in the UK under the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route, after changes to the Immigration Rules in July 2014, are meeting the intentions of the route. We were told that Home Office research, using HMRC data, found that a significant number of those who were granted an initial period of leave or an extension of leave in the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) route between 11 July 2014 and 31 May 2015 were subsequently found not to be meeting the criteria and were, therefore, not meeting the intentions of the route. The Home Office said only 28 per cent of those assessed were found to be registered as a company director with HMRC.

4.30 It was also suggested by the Home Office that the lack of evidence of economic activity from those switching in-country from Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) indicates widespread non-compliance amongst that cohort.

And there is lots and lots more - really worth reading the full version!!

It is good that they are trying to find genuine entreprenur. Some of the people has misused it so much that, becasue of them, not genuine entreprenurs are also subject of doubt

JuliaTE1 wrote:Hmm... I guess moderators don't like forum members getting in touch. Ask any questions here - I'll try to help

Just wanted to talk to u about joining established english company but maybe its to late now if changes are coming on November 19. Do u think its posible still?

It is extremely tight in terms of time but if you're able to move / make decisions fast, then yes... There are always open investment opportunities, across different sectors so hopefully there are a few matching your profile/ background

I applied 2nd time within 28days of refusal from upper tribunal for my 1st application.

My second application was refused and was given admin review right.

I have sent Admin review application within timeframe.

But after lobbying through Techcity who contacted high officials of UKBA,

Ukba said, i do not have admin review right.
As my appeal right was exhauseted for first application.

I have not yet got formal response from UKBA

Admin review guideline does not say anything about te situation that I am in.

What is your comments?
I need urgent help.

diamond07 wrote:HI,
I am a new member and this is my first post. As I do not see any link where I can submit a new post, let me put my query here,

1. I applied for second time tier-1 application ( Transitional 50K route) on 21st September 2015 within 28 days period of all appeal right exhausted ( final rejection from Upper Tribunal).

2. My visa was refused on 19th October 2015 saying I have not provided sufficient documents which proves advertisement was continuous before and after 11th July 2014.

In fact I provided many advertisement before and after 11th July 2014.

I was given right for administrative review.

I applied for administrative review on time explaining where case worker has made error in sufficiently considering documents.

My company is a member of a trading body of Technology Company. Through them, I approached an endorsement partner of UKBA (for Tier-1 Talent Visa). With My request, they Contacted high officials of Home office
a) First before I applied for administrative review, explaining my business is genuine and to consider my case positively. Home office replied saying, I should apply for Admin Review on time.

b) After applying for admin review on time, I approach again that endorsement partner of UKBA to notify high officials of UKBA to look into my case from holistic point of view and to consider all the documents provided. They have just send me an email saying, they have been sent a mail by UKBA saying,
'' My admin review' permission was given by mistake. As my appeal right for first application was fully exhausted by appeal process, even though I applied for second time within 28 days,
they said I do not have any right of administrative review.

They have not given me any legal grounds as it is a informal answer to their Tier 1 endorsement partner.
I am waiting for refusal letter for administrative review which may say,
we apologize, it was a mistake but you do not have a administrative review right.

I am not sure under which law they are saying this.

My solicitor and Barristers are working on it.

Just to give another piece of information, at the time of my second time application, I gave old photo. So I was sent a letter saying your application is invalid ( not refused) and gave me ten days time to send new photograph which I did next day of getting letter.
My question here is
Q 1. Is there any law, by which they are saying if appeal right is exhausted for first application, there will not be any appeal right for second application.

Q2. Even if there is any law like this, that if appeal right is exhausted for first application, there will not be any appeal right for second application. then how they can say I do not have administrative review right for second application. As administrative review is kept as an option to rectify case working error. How much logical is this that even if they have done an error, there will not be any option to correct it. If that was the case, UKBA Should not have even given me right for second time application.

As I have benifitted from this website in many ways, I would like to share refusal grounds.

1. They said, Leaflets is not accepted as it was not published locally or internationally.

2. I provided a gumtree advertisement which showed posted 500 days ago as it was posted on 7th May 2014 and another advertisement with the same ID which was rebumped on 10th September 2015 and printed on 13th September 2015 showing posted 3 days ago. Also I sent them an email confirmation from Gumtree Customer Service, which confirmed, this advertisement with the Id 484484884 was initially posted on 7th May 2014 and last bumped up 10th Septmber 2015. Case worker said, it is not clear whether first advertisement posted on 1st May 2014 was live until 10th September 2015.

3. I supplied evidence of having business website, case worker said domain name is not registered on my name. But the website clearly showing, this website is copyright to my company name. The domain was registered by a person of a company with which I have strategic partnership. Contract between that company and my company clearly showed that company give me IT support and maintain my website. And the domain name ownership lies solely with my company. Case worker did not say anything about these evidences.

4. I provided two invoices from paypal which showed paypal invoiced me for facebook advertisement. Case worker, said, even though I submitted invoices for facebook advert but I did not submit facebook page itself. Facebook page link was clearly shown on the business leaflet supplied, case worker could have just visited that link. But she did not.

5. I provided another advertisement from Freeindex which was printed on 2nd september 2015 and the document was showing advert last updated November 2013. It was a clear proof that that advertisment was live from NOv 2013 until at least 2nd september 2015. Case worker did not say anything about this advertisement.

Even though I could have made admin review grounds myself, still I hired one solicitor firms and two high qualified english barristers to write grounds. Later on, I took arguments from all the grounds made by solicitors and barristers and within 1000 words, I submitted a nice Admin review.

I was highly expecting a positive response. Just to make it more sure, I lobbied with trade body to reach high officials of UKBA to convince them, I have flourishing and established business which has paid over 20000 pound value added tax, corporation tax and employee tax without even having a entreprenurhship visa as it was refused in 2014 april.

My solicitor said, he has done 195 tier 1 applications but he has not seen such a harsh decisions. I provided so many documents

1. Bank statement for two years which showed £300 K turnover
2. Reference from five big telecom companies with whom I am trading. These companies are over ten years old and multi million pounds international business.

3. Reference from another telecom company which is based in Canary wharf and which is very big saying they are considering to make strategic partnership with my company.

4. HMRC letter confirming 20 k VAT PAID.

5. Patent registration of the logo of my trade name.

6. Insurance documents

7. Trade body registratons

8. Five service contracts with telecom companies

9. Letter from bank showing I am the sole controller/signatory of business finance.

10. Email Correspondence with supplier and customers

11. Business plan

12. Market Research

13. Fund available personal account 50K over 90 days, Business account 40K over 90 days. Investment shown 100k within a year - Even though I was requirefd to show only 50K available fund or investment.

I believe, my second time application is refused only because of the information they have of my first application which was refused on credibility and genuinity grounds.

a) I applied within one month of business registration. so I did not have sufficient document.
b) My business plan was written within 2-3 hours. I was not even satisfied that was a proper business plan. I was not careful enough and thought submitting business plan was not even mandatory in NOvember 2013.
c) In appeal hearing, judge found, my business partner statement and my statement do not match for few questions even though most of the question matched. HOme office have that appeal refusal grounds, which was very negative. But that judgement also said, if my business is really flourishing, I should consider submitting fresh application. By law Judge could not take new documents into consideration.


After providing so many documents, if my visa has not succeeded, now you think, if you apply second time with first time refusals, could you be able to submit documents like mine before you waste your money.

This time I applied alone. First time in a team.