CR001 wrote:Very difficult to understand your post as you provide no dates of when you applied and when you were refused. Suggest start by giving a detailed timeline if you expect any worthwhile advice.
this application i submitted Sep 2015
then oct 2015 done B M
got refusal 28 Nov 2015 allegation only ETS TOIEC DECEPTOPN
letter served for Reporting Center 29 Nov 2015
bitten buy police dog out sid my home and police have accept the libility 30 Nov 2015
reporting center appointment 5 Dec 2015
couldnt Go because of dog injury did informed them they give me 3 month after date
6 Dec 2015 letter recived from home office to apeal i did not ask for it this time they give my by self
apeal submitted
recieved letter from HRM courthearing 6 sep 2016 but on flot systum
6 sep2016 i went for hearing but judge wasnt available so new appoint ment recived 9 march 2017 so i went with my partner and solicitor
and this happen please read refusal letter
HM Courts Immigration and Asylum
& Tribunals First-tier Tribunal
Date April 2017
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Appeal No: HO Ref:
Appellant: Port Ref:
Respondent: FCONumber:
Reps Ref:
To the Appellant and Respondent
Enclosed are the First-tier Tribunal's decision and reasons in the above appeal.
Either party may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law arising from the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
Any application must be made in accordance with the relevant Procedure Rules and must be provided to the Tribunal so that it is received no later than 14 days after the date on which the party making the application was provided with written reasons for the decision, except where the Appellant is outside the United Kingdom; in which case any application must be provided to the Tribunal so that it is received no later than 28 days after the date on which the party making the application was provided with written reasons for the decision.
All applications must be sent to:
First-tier Tribunal:
Heard at Manchester on 9 March 2017 Decision & Reasons Promulgated
07/04/2017
Before
JUDGE OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
Between
APPELLANT
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT
DECISION AND REASONS
Representation
For the appellant: Mr.
For the Respondent: Ms.
The appellant
1. The appellant is an adult man and a citizen of Pakistan. He appeals the respondent's decision of 9 February 2016 to refuse his application for leave to remain on the basis of family and private life in the UK.
2. I considered whether any party to the proceedings require the protection of an anonymity direction. Having done so, as minors are directly affected by the outcome of this appeal, I consider it necessary to make an anonymity direction.
The appeal
appellant has appealed pursuant to Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum 2002 ('the 2002 Act') which provides that a person may appeal to the Tribunal where the c, etary of State has decided to refuse a human rights claim. Section 84 of the Act provides at an appeal under Section 82(1) (b) must be brought on the ground that a decision is wful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is for the appellant to discharge the !rden of proof and the standard is the balance of probability.
oection 1 17A (2) of the 2002 Act provides that where a Tribunal is required to determine ther a decision made under the Immigration Acts would be unlawful under Section 6 of the s uman Rights Act 1998, it must, in considering 'the public interest question', have regard in all cases to the considerations listed in Section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended by the Immigration Act 2014). Section 117 (3) provides that the 'public interest question' means the question of whether an interference with a person's right to respect for private and family life is justified under Article 8(2).
5 The Section 1 17B considerations are as follows:
The maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest.
(2) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are able to speak English, because persons who can speak English— (a) are less of a burden on taxpayers, and
(b) are better able to integrate into society.
(3) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are financially independent, because such persons— (a) are not a burden on taxpayers, and
(b) are better able to integrate into society.
(4) Little weight should be given to— (a) a private life, or
(b) a relationship formed with a qualifying partner that is established by a person at a time when the person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully.
(5) Little weight should be given to a private life established by a person at a time when the person's immigration status is precarious.
(6) In the case of a person who is not liable to deportation, the public interest does not require the person's removal where—
D
(a) the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and
(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom.
Evidence
6. The evidence before me includes the appellant's and the respondent's appeal bundles. I heard evidence from the appellant and his letter of 10 August 2015 and statement of 31 August 2016 was admitted as his evidence in chief. I also heard evidence from SK and her letter of 10 August 201 5 and statement of 9 March 2017 was admitted as her evidence in chief.
The appellant's immigration history
7. The appellant was granted entry clearance as a Tier 4 student from 21 June 2009 to 30 September 2010; he entered the UK on 26 September 2009. The appellant was granted further leave as a Tier 4 student until 21 April 2012 and this leave was curtailed to 13 September 2011. The appellant was served with IS151A on 20 July 2012. The appellant applied for leave to remain on the basis of family and private life on 27 August 2014 which was refused on 16 March 2015. On 11 September 2015 the appellant applied for leave to remain under the 10 year partner and private life route and this was refused on 9 February 2016 and is now subject to the appeal before me.
The refusal
8. The basis of the refusal is contained in the respondent's letter of 2016, which is a matter of record. In summary, the respondent refused the application as they considered the appellant did not meet the suitability requirements of S-LTR in paragraph R-LTRP.2.12.2, as they considered the appellant fraudulently obtained a TOEIC certificate and consequently did not meet the suitability requirements of the rules. The respondent did not accept the appellant met the eligibility requirements, as he did not meet the definition of partner in paragraph GEN. 1.2 of Appendix FM, as from the information provided it appeared he had not lived together with SK for 2 years. Further the appellant was an over stayer and failed to meet the requirements of ELTRP2.2 (b). With reference to EX 1, it was not accepted the appellant was in a relationship that was genuine and subsisting and so did not meet the requirements of EXI (b). The respondent had no evidence that he had a child in the UK and so did not meet the requirements of paragraph EXI (a) and as the respondent refused the application under the eligibility requirements, he could not benefit from the criteria set out at EXI .
The appellant's case
9. The appellant in summary says in his statement, when he came to the UK he discovered his college had closed as its license had been suspended. In August 2010 he returned to the UK from Italy and looked for colleges, his brother having lent him the money for tuition fees. He sought admission at the Birmingham Institute of Education Training & Technology and applied for an extension of his Tier 4 student visa, which was valid until 21 April 2012. He says he studied an English language course for about 14 months and was then preparing his ments to apply for an extension. He does not have any enrolment documents. He says nd May 20 1 4 he realised his sponsor had not sent the documents to the Home Office. He he was told by his sponsor not to attend college or they would report him to the police. He he tried calling the Home Office in April and was given advice to return to Pakistan. On 20 2012 he was arrested by immigration officials and detained as an over stayer. He says he knows he was in the wrong, he had the intention of attending further study and )mitting his papers.
appellant says in July 2012 he met SK a British citizen, having been introduced through a ual friend. They became close and he was travelling from Birmingham once a week to see SK has 4 children from a previous marriage born in 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2005. He says SK suffered physical and emotional abuse from her ex-husband. She had to move on a number of occasions and he provided her children support. He says his role is as a father to children, as their father currently has no contact with SK/the children. Due to ss/accident he says SK was unable to work so he moved in with her in early 2013 to a. Jist. He says in 2014 SK fell pregnant but they terminated the pregnancy due to her i tional state, previous relationship and because they were not married. He says although were living together the neighbours did not know the situation as they were always Ning/settling in new places. He says they married in a small Islamic ceremony.
1 1 . In August 2014 he says he applied for further leave to remain on the basis of his relationship,
{his was done on the wrong application form and was refused of 15 March 2015. He then a fresh application (now subject to the appeal before me).
12. The appellant says he is shocked that the respondent refused the application on the basis he obtained his English-language test by deception. He says he revised for a few months before taking the test; he does not mind taking it again, would never cheat or would do any fraud like this. He says he has done a course for one year and can speak/write English.
13. rhe appellant refers to an incident on 30 November 2015 when he was attacked by a police dog, which shows he and SK were living together at an address in Manchester. The appellant says he has lived in the UK now for nearly 8 years and established a family live here with SK and his stepchildren. He has lived with SK's children for about 4 years and he says has a close bond with them. He says he has made friends here and also has distant cousins in the UK. He says he has nothing left in Pakistan, his mother having died and his father is living with one of his brothers. He has 2 brothers and a sister living in Pakistan who are married with children. He says it is not possible for the children to relocate to Pakistan as they are British and have lived their entire lives here, go to school and have friends/family here from their mother's side.
14. In summary, in his evidence before me, under cross examination the appellant said he had taken his test; he said he had booked it online and did not know the name of the college. He was living in Birmingham when he booked the test. He said there was a test centre in Birmingham but there was an earlier date available in Manchester. He said he took 4 tests on the day, all in the afternoon, and he had taken the speaking and writing part. He did not know the date when he had taken the reading and listening part. He said he took the first test and
then had a 20 minute break before the next one. He did not see anyone cheat at the test. It was put to him that ETA said there was evidence of the use of a proxy test taker. He said he booked it online, went on the day and there was no cheating.
15. The appellant was referred to his witness statement at Bl of the respondent's bundle. He confirmed it was his statement of 10 August 201 5, with his signature and that he wanted to rely on it as evidence. He was referred to the fifth paragraph and asked when he had moved in with SK. He said he did not know exactly, but it was at the end of 2012/beginning of 2013. He had met her children in December 2012 and met SK in July after Ramadan. This was after he was arrested on 20 July 2012 had had come out of the detention centre.
16. With reference to his witness statement contained in his appeal bundle volume 1 , paragraph 3, where he had said that in April 2012 he was advised to return to Pakistan, he agreed. He was asked why he had not returned and said he had contacted a solicitor who said he should speak to his first college.
17. Regarding the mutual friend who had introduced him to SK, he said he used to work with him and they were aware of the appeal. He was asked why there was no letter in support from them; he said he lived in Birmingham, he had a conversation with him, but had not requested a letter, but the Home Office could contact and ask him. The appellant was referred to paragraph 7 of his statement, with reference to his claim that the children's teachers knew him well. He was asked why there was nothing from the school. He said this was for the school in Bradford; they had moved to Manchester and they were not willing to provide this evidence, but his details were with the school.
18. He was married on 23 July 2014 in the mosque. He named two friends who attended together with one of their friends, but he did not know their name - they having just come as a third person for a few minutes. He knew one of the witnesses, they having worked together in a supermarket in 2009.
19. He was asked why SK had terminated the pregnancy if they had married soon after. He said this was due to religious reasons and after the termination they decided to marry; her family did not know about the child. With reference to the original marriage certificate he said he did not have it and maybe it was at his solicitors' office.
20. It was put to him that he had claimed family life in the UK and was he aware his status was precarious. He agreed. He has family in Pakistan; his mother is dead and his father lives with his brother; they are in contact, but not often, as after his marriage, they had said it was shameful for him to marry a divorcee with children. He said he was in contact once/twice a month with his father. His sister was in Pakistan; he was in contact with her once/twice a year and she was not happy after he got married. He said he had told them after he had got married and they had stopped speaking to him and SK. He said his family was talking to SK after the marriage through him and that his father did speak to her as well. He said he had no friends in Pakistan. He was referred to paragraph 12 of his statement, with reference to distant cousins in the UK. He said they were Birmingham, Walsall and Wolverhampton. He was in contact with over the phone and since he left Birmingham he had not seen them much. They had met or children once when they had dropped him off in Bradford.
jeference to whether the children saw their mother's family in the UK, he said not very h, but they had one aunty here that they saw/talked to. He confirmed his driving licence een revoked in 2014 due to him not attending the reporting centre, He was asked why he Åd not returned to Pakistan and said this was because he had family links here and looked fter SK's children. He was referred to volume 3 of his appeal bundle page 487. He said this regarding the incident with the dog and his claim against the police. He said this was j )ng. There was a first claim regarding a motor accident in 2013.
22. SK in her statement in summary says she has 4 children from a previous marriage having been married for 20 years, during which time she says she was physically and psychologically abused, along with her children. She started suffering from depression in 2009 and was d 3 ced in 2012. Her family did not wish her to divorce and do not really speak to her anymore. She says she met the appellant in July 2012 having been single for about a year and having been introduced through a mutual friend. They exchanged numbers and met each other after Ramadan. They grew closer and he visited her once a week; she says she also started „dltei)ding his reporting sessions with him. She introduced him to her children in December 2012. The children do not have a relationship with their father and have not seen him in 5 yean.. She says her youngest child is close to the appellant. She says whilst in a relationship witt 'he appellant, she sustained a work injury and due to her general health was unable to work The appellant moved in with them in 2013 helping around the house and caring for her children needs. She says he is an excellent father and she cannot imagine life without him. She has since started to work again. Her statement in the main thereafter reiterates that of the appellant. She says it is not possible for her and her children to move to Pakistan.
23. In her evidence before me in summary, in cross examination, SK said she met the appellant in July 2012 having been introduced through a friend. She was referred to paragraph 4 of her statement and said they had not moved in straightaway and she had introduced him to her children first and he had moved in the following May as she had fallen ill. She said this was in 2013 April/May. They were living in Bradford when he moved in. She said she also went to Birmingham when her children were at school. They married in July 2014. She said there were two of the appellant's friends present at the Nikka and she named then. There was no-one else present. She was referred to page 195 (the marriage certificate) and said someone had to come from the Mosque to sign [the certificate]. She was not sure if the appellant knew this person. She was asked why her family were not at the wedding.
