Post
by olaf81 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:08 pm
Thank you for reply!
1. The Claimant is a national of xxx
2. He first entered the UK on 27th October, 2007 on a Tier 4 Student Visa. This was successfully extended a number of times.
3. The Claimant last applied to extend his visa on 28th December, 2012. By a letter dated 21st January, 2013, the Defendant returned the application claiming that the Claimant had not paid the application fee and that he had not completed the payment page of the application form. The Claimant had in fact completed the payment page of the application form and the Defendant could, if she had correctly processed the form, collected payment for the application.
4. Following the incorrect return to the Claimant by the Defendant of the Claimant’s application, the claimant submitted a further application on 26th January, 2013. This was refused by the Defendant by letter dated 20th March, 2013. The Defendant claimed that the Claimant had failed to satisfy the maintenance requirements. The Claimant’s leave having expired as at the date of the 2nd application, the Claimant had no right of appeal in relation to this application. The Claimant’s original application for leave to remain was ripe for granting in that the Claimant satisfied the relevant criteria.
5. The Claimant, through counsel, made representations to the Defendant by letter of 19th September, 2013. By letter dated 17th December, 2013 the Defendant responded refusing to review her decision.
6. By a letter dated 3rd March, 2014 the Claimant again pointed out the Defendant’s mistake as to failing to note the payment details on the original application and advised the Defendant that he intended to bring the instant proceedings if the matter was not reconsidered. The Defendant failed to respond.
7. On 3rd June the Claimant wrote again to the Defendant reminding the Defendant of the previous letter and again advised of the instant proceedings in default of a satisfactory response. Again the Defendant failed to respond.
GROUNDS
8. The Defendant has made an obvious error in processing the Claimant’s application for further leave to remain in the UK dated 28th December, 2012. The Defendant is under a duty to correct any such error. The Defendant has failed to do so.
9. The Defendant’s error having been pointed out by the Claimant, the Defendant failed even to look at the matter.
10. The Defendant has failed to engage with the Claimant in the matter of pre-action correspondence to the prejudice of the Claimant in that the Claimant’s application for permission for judicial review is out of time.
11. The Defendant’s decision is in breach of Natural Justice.
12. The Defendant’s decision places the Defendant in breach of her obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Claimant has a limited right to private life as a student in the UK – see CDS Brazil [2010] UKUT 305 (IAC)
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:
(i) A mandatory order in terms that the Defendant reconsider that Claimant’s application for further leave to remain dated 28th December, 2012.
(ii) A mandatory order that the Defendant grant to the Claimant further leave to remain in the UK.
(iii) An order that the Defendant pay the costs of this application.
As I stated on my post, Treasury Solicitors replied with Consent Order. I signed it unaware that the college will refuse the CAS renewal. By the time until I find another sponsor school the 28 days run out.
On top of that, even the new school agrees to issue the CAS, I don't have my passport or any ID with me, as UKBA is holding it.
LSBF is refusing to refund £5600 tuition fee.
Now this is getting ridiculously unfair.
Every month I have to report to Eaton House.
Please advise if you can.
I am happy to take professional service from experienced lawyers.
