Maintenance Rule - Appeal Allowed

immigrationuk2009 wrote:hi

guys you missing the main point.There are transitions arrangement till 1 OCT 2009 so you don't need to keep money for 3 months and if refused you can win on this sole reason.

So must appeal on transit arrangements and have good chance of winning.

UK_Banned_Member

Selvyn wrote:Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

immigrationuk2009 wrote:hi

guys you missing the main point.There are transitions arrangement till 1 OCT 2009 so you don't need to keep money for 3 months and if refused you can win on this sole reason.

So must appeal on transit arrangements and have good chance of winning.

UK_Banned_Member

ukmigrate.com wrote:Maintenance is indeed a very contentious issue right now. There was a case recently by one of our barristers where he argued this point regarding having an overdraft facility before 5 immigration judges. 1 judge accepted the argument and 4 did not. Also some barristers have argued the rule of maintenence is not doctrined by statute, in legal terms it merely carries the wieght of caseworker internal guidance. this argument has also been only accepted by 1 judge out of 5.

The maintenance story continues !!

Hi Ukmigrate...where is this statute on maintenance rule?
Thanks

Selvyn wrote:Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

madeabigmistake wrote:

ukmigrate.com wrote:Maintenance is indeed a very contentious issue right now. There was a case recently by one of our barristers where he argued this point regarding having an overdraft facility before 5 immigration judges. 1 judge accepted the argument and 4 did not. Also some barristers have argued the rule of maintenence is not doctrined by statute, in legal terms it merely carries the wieght of caseworker internal guidance. this argument has also been only accepted by 1 judge out of 5.

The maintenance story continues !!

Hi Ukmigrate...where is this statute on maintenance rule?
Thanks

Selvyn wrote:Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

ukmigrate.com wrote:There is no statute - thats the point !!

Oh, duh! Gotcha. I'm just reading a blog about third party support, which is actually my issue. I've always sent in bank statements with a letter of support from my parents and my child's father. They rejected this time; my appeal argument was going to be somewhat based on them accepting this form of support for the IGS, etc. Any ideas? Thanks!

madeabigmistake wrote:

ukmigrate.com wrote:Maintenance is indeed a very contentious issue right now. There was a case recently by one of our barristers where he argued this point regarding having an overdraft facility before 5 immigration judges. 1 judge accepted the argument and 4 did not. Also some barristers have argued the rule of maintenence is not doctrined by statute, in legal terms it merely carries the wieght of caseworker internal guidance. this argument has also been only accepted by 1 judge out of 5.

The maintenance story continues !!

Hi Ukmigrate...where is this statute on maintenance rule?
Thanks

Selvyn wrote:Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

Selvyn wrote:Hi everyone,

I just wanted to set out my experiences and views on this matter.

Sometimes, it can be particularly disheartening to read the experiences and advice of others on this board, even though there is no doubt that people on here only mean well. I hope that my experiences can be helpful to other people in a similar situation, if only to say that there is always hope.

My application for an extension of my leave under PSW was refused on the basis of the maintenance rule. The total balance in my accounts (a current and savings account) fell below the £800 minimum for 2 weeks. I did not have any foreign accounts to rely upon.

My arguments were as follows:

The decision was not in accordance with immigration rules.

I provided evidence that I had an overdraft facility on my current account. I submitted that the rule required that I had immediate access to £800 at all times, as opposed to my balance having to be at £800 at all times. I referred to para. 95 of the Policy Guidance which refers to cash funds and loans as being acceptable. I submitted that I was simply required to use the overdraft facility and transfer the required funds to my savings account. Had I done so, this appeal would not have arisen.

The judge agreed and determined that this argument is self-evident and forceful. My appeal was allowed on this basis alone.

I had set out other arguments in my notice of appeal.

In particular, I also argued that the decision was otherwise not in accordance with the law. (Please note that the judge did not think it necessary for me to run those arguments)

My argument ran as follows: The law includes immigration rules, immigration law, and the law in general. The law requires that all relevant circumstances are taken into account. In this instance, this included the fact that:
(a) I was in full-time and gainful employment; That the HO was aware of these facts;
(b) A clear immigration history; (the HO had actually made a mistake in this instance)
(c) The shortfall in my account was exceptional and temporary and that the HO had evidence of that.

These arguments were however not tested.

Finally, I also asked for a Direction from the judge (S. 87 of the 2002 Act), should he allow the appeal, for the immediate endorsement of my passport, on the basis of my own exceptional circumstances (I was required to travel within 3 weeks of the hearing). I obtained the Direction as requested and my passport was endorsed shortly after to allow me to make the trip.

At the hearing, the HO representative did not turn up. I represented myself, being a lawyer by profession (albeit not an immigration lawyer).

While I would encourage people to seek legal advice and assistance, I would also encourage people to read up on the law for themselves. Lawyers can sometimes be very drab and only go for the routine arguments. Always press them to explore all the possibilities.

I hope this is helpful. This does not constitute legal advice in any way but simply my own personal experiences and views after I allegedly fell foul of this draconian rule.

Best of luck to everyone.

S

makon wrote:Please what is your appeal reference number. I may want to quote it in an appeal I am working on.

Thanks

reddit wrote:@WEhli: Most judge will wait 2-3 weeks for the decision to be made they have a right to reserve judgement and that is what they do.