Dear Members, It is the very urgent query. My friend admin review is unsuccessful. He need to send Pre-Actrion protocol letter to HOme Office as soon and has decided to go to JR. I am mentioning below first the points he raised at the time he submitted his review and later I am going to mention the refusal of admin review. I will remain thankful to you if the senior members can have a look and raise any kind of possible points which help him in Pre-Action Protocol and JR.
FULL GROUNDS OF ADMIN REVIEW
I am writing this administrative review on the basis of my clear understanding of the reasons for refusal of my application for Tier 1 Entrepreneur made on .. .. 2018. To begin this detailed and factually addressed explanation I would like to state my shock and utter disappointment to this decision. I will try to address all the raised points to the best of my knowledge and ability and will express why I consider each point of refusal to be incorrect and absolutely astonishing.
Personal Family Circumstances: Just for a recap I would like to highlight the circumstances I had gone through just before the interview. Away from home in London, in an emergency condition my wife gave birth to our first child on .... 2019. It’s the best ever news one could hope for however it did not come easy to us, a normal birth delivery turned into a near death experience. The trauma, shock and near death situation, where we gone through her operation then serious complication where placenta remains were still left behind which caused immense bleeding to occur which resulted in serious state of haemorrhage. Like any other human this intense trauma gave us mental and physical shock which has affected us deeply. I have had no post delivery time to recover. It is humanly impossible under circumstances to even think logically let alone think business. Not to forget during this period I was still coping with my family emergency and my mental state was extremely emotionally numb and in a state of severe shock from this trauma. I was asked to go through this compliance interview on the .......
2019, which I co-operated and attended.
Personal Health Condition by Birth:
My childhood stuttering and stammering has developed over age and it actually persisted and developed even more in circumstances where I am a bit uneasy. It’s not intentional and I try my best to overcome those but find it hard when I’m questioned or judged over my situation. I have had speech therapist help me with this but I have a long way to go and I believe that my condition may have led the CO to interpret that I was delaying my responses to questions.
Compliance officer's (CO) attitude:
During the Interview, I wasn’t allowed to have access to any of my documents such as financial
reports etc. and was asked to answer based on my past memory. I was extremely shocked and felt that rather in a professional meeting I am back in school days. No one on this planet can have such strong memory by going so many years back and remember every single thing.
CO did not read documents properly and also failed to read them accurately.
Negative Mindset: During interview, CO verified all my company's financial and other related details by making phone calls to my Chartered Certified Accountant and my employee Mr. ...... Rather than taking correct information from the facts, they concluded everything based on their own assumptions. Throughout the interview, they adopted a negative attitude and failed to show any understanding about the technicalities, skills or dynamics of my business. Failed to understand the technological terms and equipment explained to them, were continuously arguing about use of equipment such as A3 printer and Printers used for printing big banners, they were forcing the prices in the range of £150 rather than actual market price.
On my laptop when I was explaining to them about different projects work methods such as architecture drawings, rather than understanding it, they were forcing the argument that they do not believe such works can be completed in the timescale I was explaining. Even for small things they had no clue and were continuously checking my answers on Google. By checking the Browser history of CO phone, you can have full details.
They had even no clue about the simple technology which is a common knowledge nowadays. Such as storing data on Microsoft One Drive through one email ID for businesses. Generating access code through mobile banking application to get logged in on a desktop. Different desktop Apps for designing, Autocad for Architecture drawings and method of preparation/calculations.
Despite going through all the situation, I kept my nerves in control and as a professional I co- operated throughout and responded in a truly polite and calm manner.
(iv) the credibility of your business activity in the UK;
First paragraph stated reason about my business bank statement
I am extremely surprised and shock to see the way CO has assumed this topic. By not understanding a simple situation he translated his failure by declaring my nature as "evasive".
Please note that on ....... 2019, I received an email from CO ...... as follows which stated as follows.
"To minimise any inconvenience this visit may cause to you, I request that you prepare the following ..:
• A full list of all employees currently working for the organisation – this should include their names, dates of birth, nationality, immigration status, passport number, Job title and contracted working hours.
• A copy of the company accounts (including salary bill).
• A full list of your business clients.
• Evidence of client contracts."
Before the start of interview, all these required documents were handed over to him
As per the circumstances explained the interview was not conducted in my office. Business bank statement was not part of the above list.
Let me revise the true situation which will help you to conclude the situation correctly. I was asked to show it online, I explained to the CO that due to the problem with my card pin, in order to get online through desktop I need to generate an access code through mobile application, however straight away at that time I was unable to have access to my business phone as due to this scheduled interview it was with my employee Mr. ..... who was taking business calls in my absence. I offered CO that if it is required I can provide you the required bank statement later, however at the end of the Interview, CO provided a list of further documents to be sent to them where it was not part of that list either. Please refer to email sent by me to CO and his acknowledgement receipt dated 10 May 2019. It is clearly evident that a simple situation was not understood by CO plus a document which was not asked either in the list of documents required by CO prior to the interview nor after the interview and the situation has been used as an excuse for refusal.
Please note further that it is mentioned as it was required "to evidence your company's turnover and business activity". Please note that documents handed over to CO which included List of Clients & Contracts, Accounts and financial reports prepared by Chartered Certified Accountants, ........... During the interview the CO called the accountant and enquired all his desired information. No challenge has been made and it is clearly evident that the documents are accepted by CO which is confirmed from Page 2: Section (iii) the credibility of the financial accounts of the business or businesses; and further on Page 5.
Please make a clear note that above documents provide a clear, detailed, certified and verified evidence regarding my "company's turnover and business activity".
The second paragraph in the letter raises concerns over my employees and why one of my employees ..... held the business phone whilst being off for 5 days. To this I would like to state here, I had explained that whilst my business premises had been affected by the rain
damages and I have had to close premises operations due to refurbishment and due to health and safety reasons I have had to give my employees time off. Due to which I am taking calls for my business but only because I was under a compliance interview it is impossible for me to have my business phone on me whilst going through an interview session. It is just highly shocking that although the compliance officer spoke over the phone to my employee Mr ..... and along with answering questions about his employment with us he also answered the question and confirmed the same situation under which he was taking calls for the business. After speaking to my employee how could they possibly raise question over the genuineness of my business. There is no way I could have my phone with me during my compliance interview, in my view that would be high level of non professionalism. Despite knowing the factual situation, yet they have raised a question over the credibility of my business activity. I am shocked with their negative interpretation, which is even beyond the imagination of any sensible professional mind and it's the height of extreme negative mindset of the CO.
The next objection on Page 3, Paragraph 2 has been on my company's accounting figures. Please note that I was not allowed to access my financial reports and was told to answer all previous year figures by remembering them only, This attitude was shocking and I was made to feel as if I am back in my school exams. The questions and my answers were as follows. The questions cited in the refusal refer in particular to figures for 2017. From the outset, my understanding was that I was being asked about figures relating to the accounts which were in fact submitted on ..../2017 to the HMRC and Company’s House. As a result I was trying to recollect relevant figures for the tax year 2016 which was submitted in 2017.
Question:
" You were asked if you knew what your profit/loss figure was for 2017. You stated that this figure was £666.00. However, the CO noted that the figure you provided related to the 2016 accounts, not 2017".
Please note that the above question was asked as to provide the tax figures on profit/loss for the accounts submitted in 2017. So I understood it as the accounts submitted to company house and HMRC on ..... 2017. This question was asked about the tax on profit/loss account. I provided the correct answer however CO stated that this is the profit/loss figure for 2016 accounts, not 2017. I am shocked to see that despite reading directly from the Accounts, they still mentioned the figures incorrectly. The correct figures are as follows
Accounts for the year 2016, submitted to Company House and HMRC in 2017 Gross Profit was
£1790 and Net Profit £1124.
Accounts for the year 2017 submitted Company House and HMRC in 2018, Gross profit was £
900 and Net profit as £467.
"With regards to sales figures, you were asked if you could confirm what your sales were, as shown in your 2017 unaudited accounts. You stated, "around £42,000." However, the accounts show your sales figure for this period as being £82,395."
The question was understood by me as Gross Profit from sales which I responded as around
£42,000. As my understanding was that I was being asked to discuss figures for accounts submitted in 2017 and I did not have the actual accounts figures before me, I thought this figure was £42,000 as the gross profit from sales. In actual fact for the period it was £40,927. The total sales figure for the Tax Year 2016 submitted in 2017 was £58,620. The CO though stated that the sales figures for the tax year 2017, were £82,395. This is incorrect and in fact the sales figures for the tax year 2016 submitted in 2017 were £58,620 and the tax year 2017 submitted in
2018 were £77,215. I am very confused and shocked by the incorrect figure mentioned by the refusal letter. Where was this incorrect figure obtained from? Please note that again it's shocking to see that despite having the benefit of reading directly from the accounts available to them they mentioned an incorrect figure.
"You were asked to confirm a figure with regards to your company's expenditure for the 2017 tax year. You stated, "Wages, around £9,000". However, the accounts show the figure as
£25,132 for this period."
The question was about expenses, I am shocked to see that CO has taken it towards wages. The question itself was asked about expenses to which I responded that General Expenses are around £9,000, which in actual fact if you check are £8,787.
"Your lack of knowledge displayed with regards to the figures relating to your business operations further adds to our existing concerns with regards to the credibility of your business activity in the United Kingdom"
In light of the above detailed explanation, I hope it will help you to clearly understand the correct situation. Please note that documents handed over to CO which included Client Contracts, List of Business Clients, Accounts and other financial reports prepared by Chartered Certified Accountants, xxxxxxx, Huddersfield. These documents were provided by Chartered Certified Accountant which fulfil the guidance of Home office, moreover during the interview the CO called the accountant and enquired all his desired information, which my accountant provided completely. No challenge has been made and it is clearly evident that the documents are accepted by CO which is confirm from Page 2: Section (iii) the credibility of the financial accounts of the business or businesses; and further on Page 5.
Please make a clear note that above documents provides a clear, detailed, certified and verified evidence regarding my "company's turnover and business activity".
Mission Statement
My credibility has been questioned due to the fact that I provided a summary of my mission statement and did not repeat word for word the full mission statement provided on my website. I strongly feel that it is unfair for the CO to expect me to remember the exact wording off the top of my head during an interview process and then challenge the credibility of my business when I am unable to do this. Furthermore the CO failed to consider that the summary that I provided in my own words was in fact an accurate summary of the actual written mission statement on the website.
(v) the credibility of the job creation for which you are claiming points
When asked by the CO to confirm the salary for ....., you stated that he was paid
£3,000 per month. The CO then asked you to provide a detailed summary of the figure provided. It is noted that you then spent a considerable amount of time reconsidering this response and then stated this figure was for everybody. You then amended your previous answer with regards to Mr ..... salary to £850 per month. Concerns are raised due to the fact that from the payslips provided for Mr ....., they show he has been receiving a monthly salary of £780 gross and £768 net for the entire period of his employment with you.
With regards to the above please note that again it was a shock to see that despite having documents available to him, CO failed to read the salary figures of Mr. ..... correctly plus CO incorrectly stated that these figures are throughout his employment with us.
Please note Mr. ..... correct salary details are, at the time of interview was £853.84 gross and £837.66 net, monthly gross salary bill of all employees including Employer's NI contribution was £2,860.26.
Further Mr. ..... monthly salary for full period of his employment with us is as follows
April 2018 to March 2019, £814.32 Gross and £800.84 Net April 2017 to March 2018 £780.00 Gross and £768.00 Net April 2016 to March 2017 £748.80 Gross and £739.58 Net March 2016 £696.80 Gross and £693.82 Net
Recruitment of the staff:
I explained to the CO that staff was recruited from local market through various ways, like through professional reference, Advertisement on windows and Job advert which was given to a
Marketer who placed job advertisement leaflet in the local news papers. There is huge difference between publishing job advertisement in a newspaper and distributing them by placing leaflets in the local newspapers. CO made his own incorrect interpretation and concluded as if I had told him the jobs were advertised in the local newspaper.
In the presence of above detailed explanation i hope it will help you to clearly understand the correct situation. Please note that documents in your records are included a Reference letter from Chartered Certified Accountants, ....... detailing full employment details of my all employees, Salary slips, HMRC and other supporting documents clearly evident that the employees are working since so many years. This was further confirmed by your CO as he called and managed a detailed conversation with my accountant and also with my employee ......
Please make a clear note that the above documents provide clear, detailed, certified and verified evidence regarding the full details of my company's employees.
Drafted Contracts by ..... and Data Storage in Microsoft OneDrive
Full details of employees including their job roles were given to CO which clearly provides each staff job role in my company. With regards to the contracts drafted by ....., CO concluded them as (referring to 4 identical contracts only in the change of company name). The contracts were more than 4 and were between 5 to 23 pages and were related to different projects. This is extremely shocking and shows a serious lack of understanding and failure to consider documents properly. This demonstrates that the CO did not even bother to read the actual individual contracts.
When questioned as to how these contracts were passed on to me by ....., I explained that we use Team Viewer technology which enables screen sharing, I gave an example that by sitting on my computer I can check the work completed by ..... on his computer. Further explained to them that all our office data is stored on Microsoft one drive through one business email ID. On my laptop I explained CO the way it works and how we access all project related data anywhere and anytime. I am shocked to understand that despite such detail explanation, he has failed to understand the simple technology which is in use all across globe. Further despite having full details of all employees he has incorrectly mentioned all employees as full time, plus the employee ..... works part time only.
The compliance officer then raises objections that I met them in the car park of my office and its adjacent Indian restaurant was the place where the interview was conducted. I had taken permission from the business owner who by the way as mentioned in the list of my business clients is one of our clients. The reason the interview was conducted there because the rain had damaged my office premises. The roof rafters became weak resulting in cracking and part of the rafter’s(the roof is made of wooden joists) being damaged and falling down. Water was seeping from the ceiling and damaged inside. The landlord was made aware and he assigned builders to complete the work, to whom I gave my keys. Due to health and safety and insurance reasons no one was allowed to go inside other than staff of builder working on site. My office door has a see-through a glass, wherefrom outside it could clearly be seen having builder’s equipment inside and after the meeting CO had clearly seen that. It has been stated by the compliance officers as if it was a deliberate measure by me to avoid taking them into my business premises. That sounds once again highly unreasonable as I had shown them the outsides of the premises and explained to them as above. The compliance officers concluded in their own minds without actually taking the factual reality into consideration. They then developed their own opinion that I had contradicted my statement whereas I had clearly mentioned right from the start. The CO was also offered that if seeing my office is your requirement, once the work is done, you can schedule a visit and were more than welcome to come to the office. After the interview, I was told to provide a copy of the business lease for the premises. Business lease along with full landlord contact details was sent. Along with these documents I also sent complete business rates documentation since 15/05/2014 from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Account Reference: 3.......).
SUMMARY
Finally, please refer to my details and complete documents in your records. By summarising the whole matter, the facts are clearly evident as follows.
1. Personal Education, Credibility & Skills
I belong to a highly educated family. With top grades I have successfully completed BSc (Civil Engineering), Level 7 Diploma in Management, MBA (Management) from Cardiff Met. University, Certification in Oracle Database Administration, Other Web Design, Development, e- business certifications and training programs. Gained valuable work experience by working for different well-established business brands and also managed different personal business projects. During my exceptional and outstanding academic achievements I was awarded top awards in Pakistan including Certificate and Gold Medals by Chief Minister xxxxx, Pakistan, Gold Medal by Governor xxxx, Pakistan. Xxxxx Scholarship and Pakistan highest Academic award known as xxxxxxx awarded by President of Pakistan.
2. Investment of more than 50,000
After extensive business plan, funds of 50,000 were invested in the business and with the hard work of over so many years the business is well established in the UK.
3. Business Premises
Business is operated from business premises. Since .....2014 Business rates are paid to City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Account Reference: 3.....).
4. Business Clients, activity, employees and our Credibility
Employees are working since so many years. Business has established credibility as we have delivered hundreds of successful projects and we are getting repeated business from our regular and new clients. Due to our hard work and top end professional services not only our clients got high business success but it is worth mentioning that based on our architecture work, our business clients have always enjoyed the pleasure of smooth process and their projects are always delivered exactly as per the given directions and criteria set by local councils. Their projects always got approval without any hassle from local city councils all across the UK including 6 London Councils. Based on which hundreds of properties are constructed and thousands of people are enjoying their use.
Following documents were given to CO.
16 business clients full contact details along with Business Contracts, Full Employment documents including Letter from Chartered Certified Accountant detailing full details of all employees, Salary slips, HMRC and other full supporting documents for the entire period of their employment, Accounts and all supporting financial documents prepared by Chartered Certified Accountant, ......
During the interview, CO also made phone calls and contacted our employee ..... and our
Accountant ...... and received all his desired information.
Please note that above documents provide a clear, detailed, certified and verified evidence which confirms the above mentioned summary.
ADMIN REVIEW REFUSAL:
Dear Mr ....
Your application has been unsuccessful. You should now leave the United Kingdom.
What this means for you.
You must leave the UK now, or you will be liable to be detained and removed.
If you do not leave voluntarily and removal action is required you may be subject to a re-entry ban of up to 10 years. You may also be prosecuted for the offence of overstaying, the penalty for which is a fine and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.
While in the UK you may not work or access benefits.
Further information
If you have any reason to stay in the UK that you have not already told us about, you must tell us now or at the latest within 14 days of the date of this decision letter using the application forms on our website: gov.uk/ukvi. You should seek legal advice as soon as possible if you are intending to stay in the UK.
The enclosed documents set out the reasons why your administrative review failed and informs you of the legal consequences.
Yours sincerely,
REASONS FOR DECISION
Re: Mr ....
Mrs ....
Date of decision: 29 Feb 2020
Our ref:
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: DECISION MAINTAINED
Thank you for your application of .. January 2020 for a review of the decision to refuse your application for an extension of leave to remain as a Tier 1 Entrepreneur.
We have carefully considered the points that you raised in the administrative review application. We have maintained the original decision for the reasons given below.
Within your administrative review you raise that you had suffered from some trauma in your personal life due to complications when your wife was giving birth in May 2019 which had affected you mentally. Whilst we sympathise with the personal trauma that you have experienced, at no point prior or during the interview was these circumstances raised. If compliance officer had been informed of this, they may have been able to rearrange the compliance visit. However as there are no records that any concerns had been raised, there is not considered to be an error by the compliance officer continuing to conduct the compliance visit.
You further raise that within the compliance visit you were not able to refer to any documents and were asked to answer based on memory which was reminiscent of your school days. You claim that no one on this planet has a strong enough memory to go back years and remember every single thing. The purpose of a credibility interview amongst other things is to assess the knowledge of the business without the need for you to refer to documentation. The visit gave you the opportunity to explain your business in detail. We would expect a genuine business person to be able to provide specific details about their business accounts and how they advertise for jobs without needing to refer to any documents. Profits and loss are considered to be important figures with which a genuine business person would be readily familiar. We do not accept such figures would amount to an obscure memory test. The submission of further documents after they have been asked specific questions about them at interview is not considered to sufficiently dispel the concerns raised by the original caseworker given the lack of clarity and detail provided during the interview process.
You go on to raise that rather taking correct information from the facts provided, the compliance officer concluded everything based on their own assumptions and adopted a negative approach. You claim they also failed to show any understanding of the technicalities, skills or terminologies used and that they were continuously arguing about equipment such as A3 printers and were forcing prices in range of £150 rather than actual market price. Upon review of the compliance report, we are satisfied that the concerns raised by the original caseworker are reasonable. The conclusion that has been drawn is based on both documents provided, observations and your responses during the visit. There are clear inconsistencies within the information you provided. Within your decision letter there is no reference to any A3 printers nor do we consider that the compliance officer has forced figures throughout the visit. Throughout the compliance visit, it is considered that you have had every opportunity to explain in your own words your business affairs. You raise that within the compliance visit you were trying to explain different projects that you work on, but the compliance officers argued that they did not think it was possible in the timescale you advised. There has been no mention of these issues within your decision letter, therefore the original caseworker had no concerns on this and this does not affect your overall decision.
You further claim that the compliance officers did not have any clue about the things you were explaining and had to Google them. Upon review of the compliance report we are satisfied that the compliance officers have allowed you every opportunity to explain what work you complete and how you complete it. We do not accept your claims that they were forcing an argument. Furthermore, we would not expect the compliance officer to know every detail about your business and the terminologies used. If the compliance officer used Google to research, this demonstrates they were being thorough rather than making assumptions. It is expected that as you are the sole director overseeing the operations within your business you would be able to explain in sufficient detail to dispel any concerns over your businesses credibility. We consider the compliance officers report to be comprehensive and authoritative notes of the events that had taken place throughout the interview. It is expected that as the sole director of your company you will be able to provide a definitive and cohesive explanation of your business and business affairs in enough detail to eliminate any credibility concerns.
Moreover, you claim the compliance officer assumed the topic by not understanding a simple situation and that they translated this failure by stating your nature was evasive when asked to provide your business bank statements. You state you received an email on .. April 2019 requesting documents which you the provided during the interview. You claim that you couldn't access your banking because a you needed an access code which is sent to your phone but you had given your mobile phone to your employee to take business calls while the visit was being conducted. You claim you offered to provide copies of the bank statements to the compliance officer but instead you were given another list of documents to provide and there was no mention of bank statements on this list. You note that the evidence that you provided demonstrates the companies turn over and business activity and the original caseworker has accepted the documents.
Upon review of the compliance report in its entirety, we are satisfied that the original caseworker has not misunderstood the situation regarding accessing your business bank account. They have highlighted that it is concerning that as the sole director of your business, you could not gain access to your bank account. It is concerning that as you are the sole director of your business that you would not be able to gain access to you business bank account when required to do so, it is expected that a credible director would have no issues accessing their business bank account. Whilst we accept that the compliance officer may not have requested the business bank statement prior to the compliance visit, it is of concern that you could not provide these when requested. During the interview even if these had been provided after the interview, this would not have altered the initial concerns with your business activities and resulted in a grant of leave due to other areas of concern. The submission of additional supporting evidence after the interview had taken place would not have dispelled all of the concerns raised by the compliance officer/ original caseworker. Therefore we do not consider there has been an error by highlighting these concerns.
Furthermore, you raise that due to the rain damage within your business premises you had to close it for health and safety concerns and also had to give your employees time off. You claim due to your staff being off, you had to take business calls, but due to the compliance visit it was impossible for you to have your phone with you. The concerns raised by the compliance officer are not due to the rain damage within your business premises, but the fact that at the beginning and throughout the compliance visit you stated that once the visit had completed you would take them over and allow them to see your premises. However, once the visit had been completed you stated that you did not have the keys to unlock the building. It is also of concern that you stated you have your employees time off, however one employee was currently working from home for the day using your business phone. While we appreciate during the visit you may not want to have your phone on you, your explanation to the compliance officers differed from what you had previously advised. You had told the compliance officer that you had given your employees 5 days off due to the rain damage as they only work from the office and not from home, however you then stated that Mr ... had your business phone so he could take work related calls- from home. It is not considered that the original caseworker has made an error by highlighting this contradiction.
Additionally, you raise that within your interview you were not allowed to have your account information to reference. You further claim that from the outset your understanding was that you were being questioned in regards to your accounts submitted on ... June 2017, which was the figures for 2016/2017 and that the compliance officer stated the figure provided was for the 2016 period. The purpose of a credibility assessment is to assess the knowledge of your business without you needing to refer to documentation, it is expected as the sole director of your business you would be able to recall your profit and losses without the need to reference your accounts. Upon further review it is clear from the compliance visit report that the compliance officer clearly asked you to provide the profit/loss figure for 2017 and when you provided the figure for 2016, the compliance officer asked you again for the 2017 figure and you responded "No, I don't have a figure in my head right now". Therefore, we do not consider there had been an error by highlighting this concern. You further claim that the original caseworker has stated incorrect figures within the decision letter despite having access to the documents. The figures quoted are direct from what the compliance officer viewed during the visit. It is considered that these notes contain accurate figures from the evidence you provided to the compliance officer. The concern raised by the original caseworker are that you could not recall the figures for the 2017 year, as it is expected the sole director of a business would know.
You raise that you had provided the compliance officer with a number of documents and that these documents confirm that you are running a credible business. However, the submission of additional documents may not be sufficient to demonstrate your businesses credibility. The original caseworker will consider both the evidence submitted and your responses from the interview but may still find you to be non-credible despite the submission of the extra documents. It is expected that the answers that you provide during the interview correspond with the documents, as your answers did not the original caseworker is not considered to have made an error by highlighting the concerns over the credibility of your business.
Additionally, you raise that it is strongly unfair for the compliance officer to expect you remember your mission statement word for word off the top of your head during the interview. You claim the compliance officer failed to consider that the summary you provided was an accurate summary of the mission statement written on your website. We do not consider it unfair that the compliance officer expected you to remember off the top of your head, the mission statement that you wrote. A near approximate of the statement would likely have been acceptable. There is no evidence that the compliance officer would have only accepted a word for word recitation. It is expected that this statements would be referred to throughout your business, especially when promoting services for your business. When you were asked if you knew how many components of the mission statement process were you stated "I don't have it in my mind right now- six I think". The original caseworker has reasonably highlighted that it is concerning that you cannot recall the key principles within your mission statement, as you would have wrote the mission statement it is a reasonable expectation that you will be able to remember it.
Moreover, you claim the original caseworker failed to read the salary of Mr xxxxx correctly despite having the documents available. Upon review of the evidence provided, we are satisfied that the original caseworker has correctly stated the Mr xxxxx salary based on the payslips that you provided with your initial application. We cannot accept you claim at face value that the compliance officer simply failed to correctly observe and record the correct figures. It raises concerns that initially you stated that Mr xxxxx salary was £3,000 per month, when you were asked to provide a summary of the figure you spent a considerable amount of time reconsidering your response. You then amended your previous answer to £850 per month, which again is different from the figure on the payslips. It is reasonable for the original caseworker to highlight this as an area of concern as it is expected that as the sole director of your business you would be able to recall your employees salary without the need to refer to any documents.
You go on to raise that you recruited your staff in various ways and that you gave a job advert to a marketer who placed the job advert in local newspapers. You claim this is a huge difference between publishing the advert in a newspaper and the compliance officer has made their own interpretation on how this was advertised. The answers that you provided during the interview failed to go into the detail that you have explained within your administrative review. You advised during the interview that you advertised the post in the local newspaper, but could not remember which newspaper. The original caseworker is not considered to have made an error by interpreting your explanation as you posting the advert in the newspaper, not inserting a leaflet in the newspaper. It would be expected that during the interview you would have been able to explain this to the compliance officer to avoid a misunderstanding, however you were unable to do so. Therefore we do not consider there has been an error made.
You claim that the contacts that Mr xxxx had drafted were all relating to different projects and were not the same. You further claim that there has been a misunderstanding by the original caseworker as they have failed to review each document individually and that they have failed to understand basic technology. You raise that the contracts were passed on to you from Mr xxxx by Team Viewer and all your work is saved on Microsoft Office. Further raise that despite having the details available the original caseworker mentioned that all of your employees are full time but one of them is actually part time. Upon review of the compliance report, we consider this to be an authoritative summary off the events which had taken place. Whilst you may claim that your contracts a not the same and relate to different projects, the compliance officer had noted that the only difference between the contracts was the name of the company you claimed to be working for. It would be expected that each contract is drawn up to meet the needs of each individual client and not just a generic template. As you failed to demonstrate this to the compliance officer we do not consider there has been an error by highlighting this concern. Furthermore, when asked how Mr xxxx had shown you the contracts he had drafted you stated "I just looked at them on his computer'' contradicting what you have stated with your administrative review. At no point throughout the interview is there any record that you share work via Team Viewer or state that you save your work on Microsoft Office, therefore we do not consider there has been any misunderstanding on the part of the compliance officer. At no point during your decision letter does the original caseworker raise that all of your employees are full time, the concern raised by the original caseworker is that you could not provide sufficient evidence of work completed by your claimed employees.
In addition you raise that you had taken permission from the owner of the Indian Restaurant to undertake your interview there as they are one of your clients. You claim that the rain damage made your premises unsafe and that your landlord is aware and has sent builders who have your keys. You go on to claim that the compliance officers looked through the door and could see inside of the premises and that its unreasonable for the concerns to be raised as you explained why they couldn't go inside, also that a visit can be arranged once work is completed. Upon review, concerns raised are not entirely because the visit had to take place in the restaurant across the road from your premises, the concern raised is that throughout the interview you stated that once the interview is completed the compliance officer can go into your premises. However at the end of the interview you stated you did not have the keys and the compliance officer observed there did not appear to be any building work on the premises. This information was a clear contradiction to what you had originally advised the compliance officers. Therefore we do not consider it unreasonable for the original caseworker to highlight this concern based on the information you told the compliance officers. As one compliance visit has been conducted and sufficient evidence has been gathered from your business to demonstrate that it is not credible, there would be no need to conduct a further interview as this would not affect the overall decision of your application.
Finally, you raise that you have all the necessary experience to establish a business in the UK. Whilst we acknowledge the documentation you have provided, we cannot overlook the concerns raised by the compliance officer. The submission of specified documents does not remove the need for the compliance officer to be satisfied that your claimed job creation and business activity are genuine. The concerns raised by the compliance officer are considered reasonable as part of a balance of probabilities assessment.
As a result we have maintained the decision to refuse your application in line with Paragraph 24500 of the Immigration Rules as you do not meet the requirements at Paragraph 24500(k) with reference to 24500(1) and 24500(n).
Within your Administrative Review you have also asked us to consider your dependants. However, your dependant spouse have also remained refused under Paragraphs 319C(b) of the Immigration Rules respectively, which state;
319C. Requirements for entry clearance or leave to remain
To qualify for entry clearance or leave to remain as the Partner of a Relevant Points Based System Migrant, an applicant must meet the requirements listed below. If the applicant meets these requirements, entry clearance or leave to remain will be granted. If the applicant does not meet these requirements, the application will be refused
(b) The applicant must be the spouse or civil partner, unmarried or same-sex
partner of a person who:
System Migrant or
(ii) is, at the same time, being granted entry clearance or leave to remain as a Relevant Points Based System Migrant,
Section 17 - Retention Of Documents
As you are liable to enforced removal from the United Kingdom under section 10 of the Immigration Act and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended by the Immigration Act 2014) your passports have been retained by the Home Office under section 17 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimant etc) Act 2004, which permits the retention of documentation where an individual is liable to be removed.
Immigration Health Surcharge
As your application was made after 06 April 2015 you were required to make an Immigration Health Surcharge payment. This will now be refunded to the account or card you paid with, within 6 weeks of this administrative review decision.
ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
Re: Mr
Mrs
Date of decision: 29 February 2020
This enforcement notice accompanies the enclosed decision refusing your application for administrative review of your application for leave to remain.
LIABILITY FOR REMOVAL
Persons who require, but no longer have leave to enter or remain are liable to removal from the United Kingdom under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as amended by the Immigration Act 2014).
If you do not leave the United Kingdom as required you will be liable to enforced removal to .........We may remove you via a transit point in an EU/EEA member state. If removal could involve transit through a non-EEA country. We may remove you via You will be given further notice of when you will be removed. If you wish to seek legal advice you must do so now.
You may be detained or granted immigration bail.
IMMIGRATION BAIL
[;8J I hereby grant you immigration bail subject to the following condition(s)
[;8J You are not allowed to WORK
D You are not allowed to STUDY
D You are required to comply with OTHER condition(s) as set out below:
You must inform us of any change of contact information including your address, email address and telephone number(s),
ANY CHANGE OF IMMIGRATION BAIL CONDITIONS
You must not change your conditions without the agreement of the Secretary of
State. If these conditions are to be changed, you will be notified.
• Although you may have been granted immigration bail, you remain liable to be detained
• This document must not be accepted by employers as evidence of a right to work (this does not apply to EEA nationals, or the family member of an EEA national, exercising an EU treaty right.
• You have NOT been given leave to enter the United Kingdom within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION BAIL CONDITIONS
If you do not comply with these conditions:
• You can be arrested and detained
• You can be prosecuted, fined and imprisoned
• Your details may be placed on the Police National Computer (PNC).
If in the next 4 weeks you have difficulty in being able to comply with any of your conditions, you must contact UKVI, Admin Review, PO Box 663, Salford, M5 OLW, and give your reason immediately. After that date you must contact Immigration Bail Query, Returns Preparation Workflow, PO Box 3468, Sheffield, S3 BWA as ownership of your case will have transferred to another department.
IMMIGRATION BAIL AUTOMATICALLY ENDS WHEN:
• You are no longer liable to be detained and the Secretary of State is not considering whether to make a deportation order against you
• You are granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom,
• You are detained, or
• You are removed or otherwise leave the United Kingdom
CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGALLY STAYING IN THE UK
Persons who remain in the UK without lawful basis may be prosecuted for the offence of overstaying under the Immigration Act 1971, the penalty for which is a fine and/or up to 6 months imprisonment. If you do not leave voluntarily and removal action is required you may face a re-entry ban of up to 10 years. If you decide to stay, then your life in the UK will become increasingly more difficult. For example, some of the consequences of not leaving immediately will be that:
• You will not be allowed to work in the UK. Immigration Enforcement Officers visit workplaces and any employer found to be employing an illegal immigrant may be liable for a civil penalty of up to £20,000 per illegal worker.
• The Immigration Act 2014 will require landlords to conduct immigration checks. Landlords may face a penalty if they let a property to an illegal migrant.
• You are not entitled to claim benefits. Immigration Enforcement will share your details with HMRC or DWP. You may be liable for prosecution if you make a false declaration to these organisations or fail to inform them of a change
in your circumstances which affects your entitlement to benefits.
• You may be charged for any secondary healthcare you receive.
• Immigration Enforcement may share your details with financial fraud prevention organisations to allow service providers to decide whether you should have access to financial products such as bank accounts and credit agreements.
• Immigration Enforcement will ask the DVLA not to issue you with a driving licence. If you already have one, we will ask the DVLA to consider cancelling it. If your licence is cancelled, you will then be unable to drive legally in the UK.
IF YOU HAVE FURTHER REASONS FOR WANTING TO STAY IN THE UK
If you have reasons to stay in the United Kingdom that were not part of your recent application, you must state them. This requirement is being given under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. If you do not tell us as soon as reasonably practicable and you tell us later without good reason, you will lose any right of appeal you may have otherwise qualified for if we refuse your claim.
What you must do
You must now tell us about any reasons or grounds you have now: for wishing to remain in the United Kingdom. You do not need
to tell us about any reasons or grounds which you have already
told us in your claim or application.
Where you have something new to raise now, you should do so straight away or at the latest within 14 days of the date of this letter.
Where you do have a reason or grounds for wishing to stay in the United Kingdom you should submit an application using the relevant form. You can find the application form on our website: gov.uklukvi.
Where you do not have a reason or grounds for wishing to stay you must leave the UK.
What you must do in the future:
In the future, if you fail to depart from the United Kingdom and your circumstances change so that you have new reasons or grounds for wishing to remain in the United Kingdom, you must tell us about them, by making an application to remain in UK, as soon as reasonably practicable.
HELP AND ADVICE ON RETURNING HOME
The Home Office Voluntary Returns Service can be contacted for help on returning home.
The team can discuss your return, help to obtain your travel document and send it to the port of departure, help with the cost of your tickets, and in some cases provided other financial and practical assistance to use once you have returned to your home country.
Please note that if your documents are held by the Home Office please contact the voluntary returns service before you book your flight if you are paying for your own return, this will help us ensure that your passport is available for your flight.
Contact the voluntary Returns Service
Telephone: 0300 004 0202 (Monday- Friday between 9:00 and 17:00) Web:
https://www.gov.uk/return-home-voluntar ... n-get-help.
The Data Protection Act 2018 governs how we use personal data. For details of how we will use your personal information and who we may share it with please see our Privacy Notice for the Border, Immigration and Citizenship system at
https://www.gov.uk/governmentlpublicati ... n-borders immigration-and-citizenship. This also explains your key rights under the Act, how
you can access your personal information and how to complain if you have concerns.
