My appeal against family visitor got refused should i go for fresh case or apply for upper tribunal permission kindly help me out
I am totally genuine visitor and never take law in my hands and i tried to provided all evidence for my appeal but still got refused
Totally confused and disheartened
posting content of my dismissed appeal
The evidences
The documentary evidence before me consists of the appellant’s visa application, a sponsorship declaration, a letter from the appellant’s employment in relation to employment he commenced after the respondent’s decision was issued , a letter from the sponsor’s GP confirming the sponsor is being treated for seropositive rheumatoid arthritis, asthma and depression, a copy of the sponsor’s lease for her one bedroom flat, a copy of the appellant’s birth certificate, passport and ID card, a copy of appellant’s mother’s passport and previous visa for the united kingdom, a copy of the appellant’s bank statement with HBL, evidence the appellant sold his vehicle on the 21 February 2012, copies of term investments the appellant holds jointly with his mother, an affidavit of support from the appellant’s mother and copies of his mother’s term investments with national savings Centre, a copy of the appellant’s sister’s identity card and evidence she is a student, witness statements from the appellant and the sponsor , the respondent’s decision and the notice and grounds of appeal and a copy of the respondent’s review decision.
My evaluation of the evidence and findings are as follows :-
I. The responded noted the appellant was unemployed and that his claimed income of RS 45,000(£312) from joint investments he held with his mother was not reflected in his HBL bank statement. The respondent noted the deposits in the appellant’s bank account were in excess of these income and the had not provided any evidence as to the origin of these deposits made in February, April and June totaling Rs330,00(£2,224). Account were genuinely available to him to meet the costs of his proposed visit to the united kingdom or that they were a true reflection of his financial and personal circumstances in Pakistan the respondent noted the appellant had provided an affidavit of support from his mother but found this to be little evidential value as it did not confirm his mother’s financial circumstances the respondent noted the appellant proposed to spend Rs400,000 (£2,739) on his proposed visit which comprised eight months of his claimed income and did not find it credible that someone with the finical circumstances claimed by the appellant would be prepared to spend such a significant amount of money on a three week trip to the united kingdom. The respondent noted the appellant did not have any dependent relatives in Pakistan and found the appellant had limited ties to Pakistan which would not encourage him to leave the united kingdom . he noted the appellant had provided no travel history to suggest compliance with immigration procedures similar to that of the united kingdom . the respondent was not satisfied the appellant had accurately presented hid circumstances or intentions in wishing to visit the united kingdom and concluded he don’t not meet the conditions of the immigration rules as a family visitor.
II. The appellant has provided six pages of ground of appeal and states he is a 30 years old man who lives with his mother and sister and he proposes to visit his sister in the united kingdom for three weeks . he advises his mother visited the UK 2010 and that his sister who is a student needs his mother’s support in Pakistan . he advises his sponsor is being treated for seropositive rheumatoid arthritis . he states he will leave the united kingdom at the end of his proposed visit . he advises that since the respondent’s decision he has obtained employment as a software developer and earns salary of Rs30,000 in cash each month he states his mother has substantial savings of Rs50,000 (£33,556.80) and the he and his mother receives Rs45,000 per month returns on their investment s. he states that he also has savings in his own bank account of Rs573,006 (£3,851.56) and that his bank statement shows a consistent history of savings which show he has finical ties to Pakistan . the appellant advises that he sold his vehicle in April 3012 and the deposits in his account represent the installments paid by his purchaser and that the monies in his account belong to him he states his mother is wealthy and has investments and that as he lives with his mother , they have comfortable economic circumstances in his savings of RS 573,886.79 with him to the united kingdom as a precautionary measure, as his sponsor is only providing him with week trip. He states he only proposes to spend a fraction of the funds he proposes to take with him. The appellant advises he has two sisters in addition to the appellant in his family’s household. He asserts the respondent’s decision constitutes a violation of his right to private family life with his sponsor .
III. The sponsor attended the hearing and gave oral evidence that she suffers from seropositive rheumatoid arthritis. Depression and asthma and is receiving treatment for her conditions in united kingdom . she stated she is unable to travel because of her conditions and that her brother wishes to visit her in the united kingdom for a period of three weeks. I noted the letter from the sponsor’s GP did not indicate she was too ill to travel . she stated her brother is funding his own visit to the united kingdom and that she is providing him with free accommodation in her one bedroom flat , for which she has obtained permission from her landlord. I noted there was no documentary evidence from the sponsor’s landlord to indicate he was agreeable to her brother staying with her. The sponsor stated she is not making any other contribution towards the cost of her brother’s visit as she does not work and is reliant on state benefits . the sponsor advised the appellant intends to bring with him two or three lacs to fund his UK trip . when asked why he would bring such large sum of money with him to the united kingdom for three weeks visit , when he does not have to pay for accommodation , the sponsor the said that he will bring only RS50,000 – 60,000 with him to the united kingdom . I noticed the sponsor ‘s evidence about the funds the appellant intends to bring with him was inconsistent with the appellant’s own evidence that he intended to bring with him RS400,000 (£2,739) given that the appellant is being provided with free accommodation in his sister’s flat . I did not find it credible he would believe it necessary to bring well over £2,500 with him to fund his own maintenance costs for period of only three weeks . I did not find the appellant’s evidence as to the monies he will bring to the united kingdom to be consistent with a short stay of only three weeks .
IV. The sponsor stated the appellant does not have any other relatives in the united kingdom. however the appellant advises in his grounds of appeal that he has sister, Mrs. xxxxxxxxxxxx who is married and living with her family in the united kingdom . regardless of which account is accurate . I note the appellant and his sponsor are siblings and I found in inconsistency in their evidence as to whether the appellant has other relatives living in the united kingdom did nothing to enhance the credibility of their evidence and stated intentions .
V. The sponsor provided evidence that her brother sold his car because he needed the money (page 2 of the record of proceedings). I did not find this evidence was consistent with the appellant’s stated receipt of an income of RS45,000 from his joint investments with his mother. I noted the appellant does not indicate the sale of his car was caused by lack of finances . given the wealth the sponsor states he and his family have in Pakistan, I cannot discount the possibility that the appellant was liquidating his assets in Pakistan in anticipation of gaining entry to the united kingdom .
VI. I noted at the time of the respondent’s decision the appellant was a 30 years old single man, who was unemployed and living with his mother, had recently sold his only asset in Pakistan and intended to bring with him a sum of £2,739, (which represented the majority of the funds in his bank account ) to the united kingdom to meet his maintenance costs for short period of three weeks I found the appellant’s evidence of his intended expenditure on a three week visit to the united kingdom was not consistent with the claimed duration of his proposed visit , or with his circumstances prevailing at the time of respondent’s decision , namely that he was unemployed and reliant on his savings and his mother. I find the appellant’s sales of his car in April 2012, just before the applied for entry clearance to the united kingdom is not consistent with someone who intends to return to his home country to seek work after a three weeks visit his sister. I accept that at the of the respondent’s decision the appellant’s mother had significant investments , some of which she held jointly with the appellant. I find the finical independence if the appellant’s mother does not indicate she has nay reliance on the appellant for finical support . I find the appellant has failed to establish that at the time of respondent’s decision he had economic , employment and social ties to Pakistan that would encourage him to leave the united kingdom at the end of a short family visit. I find the appellant has failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that at the time of respondent’s decision he was a genuine family visitor who intended to leave the united kingdom at the end of three week visit .
VII. I accept that at the time of the respondent’s decision the appellant had sufficient monies in his bank account from the sale of his car to fund his travel and maintenance costs for a three week visit to the united kingdom . I also accept that how he spends his savings in matter for the appellant . however I find his stated intention to utilize the majority of his savings to fund a three week visit to the united kingdom does not suggest the appellant intended to return to Pakistan within three weeks.
VIII. The appellant advise that since the respondent’s decision was issued , he has obtained employment . there was no evidence before me to suggest his employment was reasonably foreseeable at the time the appellant lodged his application for entry clearance and I note the appellant did not indicate he was seeking employment is and event occurring after the respondent’s decision was issued and have not taken this into account .
IX. The applicant claims that the respondent’s decision constitutes a violation of his right to private family life with his sister in the united kingdom . I note the appellant and his sponsor are adult siblings who have lived in separate countries for number of years . I note that though the sponsor’s marriage . which brought her to the united kingdom has ended , the sponsor has chosen to remain in the united kingdom and not to return to her family in Pakistan . I conclude the separation of the appellant and the sponsor is therefore one of choice. There was no evidence before me to suggest that the appellant and the sponsor enjoy relationship of dependence . there was no evidence before me to indicate the appellant has any private life in the united kingdom or to suggest that the private life the sponsor enjoys in the united kingdom has been affected by the respondent’s decision. I conclude that the family and private life the appellant enjoys with his sponsor does not fall to be protected by article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
X. In summary I find the appellant had not established he meets the requirements of paragraph 41 of HC 395 for entry clearance as family visitor . I find the decision was in accordance with the law.
The Appeal Decision
The appeal is dismissed.