Post
by rayuk » Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:29 pm
Going through Appeal process is not easy, it took me 18 months and with only AR now it could be worse. What I realised is it is imp. to prepare strong Grounds of Appeal/ Review.
I attach mine successful (HO refused initially to accept funding source awarding only 20 out on 95 needed pts) if helps anyone here have a Template/ Structure. Best wishes!!
------------------------Grounds---------------
Grounds of appeal: I had £10k of own + £40k from VC
The decision to refuse the application is not in accordance with the law as it is in breach of the relevant immigration rules and specified guidance contained in Appendix A and C of the rules.
The decision is erroneous and shows that the decision maker, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, misunderstood the application, relevant provisions of the Immigration Rules and failed to consider the supporting documents provided with the application.
Having misunderstood the application, the decision maker also failed to use the opportunity given by the relevant rules and guidance to request additional information or evidence from the applicant choosing to refuse it instead.
The initial reference to provision (a) of Table 4 of Appendix A is incorrect. The application was made in terms of provision (d) (i) to (v). The applicant is a Post Study Work (PSW) visa holder and needs to demonstrate access to £50,000 (as money available to invest either directly or have invested on his behalf from a third party) in order to obtain a Tier-1 Entrepreneur visa. Further, the reference to provision (a) is in contradiction to conclusion made by the decision maker toward the end of the same section, i.e. ‘However, they do not demonstrate that you have access to £50,000’.
The reference to Paragraph 45 of Appendix A is incorrect. Paragraph 45 states: “If the applicant has invested the money referred to in Table 4 in the UK before the application, points will be awarded as if the applicant has not yet invested the funds”. It is clear from the application and evidence submitted that it was not the applicant who invested part of the money directly, i.e. £40,000, but that the money was made available to the applicant and his business by the third party, XYZ Syndicate Ltd., and I had access to it as required by the provision (d) (v) of Table 4. The evidence submitted was in accordance with paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A, as well as relevant sections of paragraph 46-SD.
The decision maker paraphrased Paragraph 45 incorrectly leading to improper understanding of the application, which then led to the erroneous reference to only a portion of Paragraph 46-SD.
As the reference to paragraph 45 was made incorrectly, all subsequent references to portions of paragraphs 46-SD (b) and (c) were also made incorrectly accordingly. The decision maker failed to consider any of the supporting specified documents submitted under the relevant paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A as well as paragraph 46-SD.
The decision maker has failed to consider the following evidences correctly.
The reference to the unaudited management accounts and the investment required to be made by the applicant directly is incorrect representation of Paragraph 46-SD (b). As per paragraph 46-SD (b), ‘Audited or unaudited accounts must show the investment in money made directly by the applicant, in his own name or on his behalf’.
The applicant had the money £40,000 invested on his behalf and showing his name from a third party, Syndicate working with the University Incubator. The company’s management accounts were prepared by a registered chartered accountant Mr. xyz (membership no. xx0006) and submitted on the Company official letter head with the registration number and provided with the link to entry in the directory of member of ICAS, which also list xyz as the principal CA of firm was also provided. These management accounts were prepared on the request of the Director, Mr. xyz (which is noted in the document) and it has not been claimed that Mr.xyz is the only Director of the Company.
Companies House Appointment Report: The reference to the current appointment report showing the other two director of company is irrelevant as the applicant is a majority shareholder and a managing director of the company. Evidence pertaining to this is contained in the Company House’s official appointment report and further these evidences had been stamped and signed by a notary public. Further, the Company’s official legal representatives acting on behalf of the Company had summarised the shareholding structure and all necessary details that establish that the applicant has access to the £40,000 invested into the applicant’s business that has been invested on his behalf and made available to the applicant. Further, the Company’s business bank account statement clearly shows that the applicant is the sole holder of this Company’s business bank account and the only signatory for this account.
