Tier 1 Entrepreneur Visa Refused

[alisafdar2018]

Hi All,

I applied my Tier 1 entreprenur visa which got refused with no right of appeal. I transferred the sum of £50,000/- from my personal and saving account into my business bank account and they said that in a hearing that it is an invested money and the bank statement is not under your name so you do not qualify 25 points for the funds available to invest.

Please find below my UK Visa history.

Grant leave to U.K on 15th Feb, 2009 valid till 31st Oct, 2010.

Further leave as Tier 1 entrepreneur effective to 12 Nov, 2012.

1st Tier 1 application refused on 16th May, 2013 with the right of appeal.

Appeal withdrawn and applied again tier 1 entrepreneur visa on 12th June, 2014 which was refused on 2nd July, 2014.

Pre-action protocol filed on 20th August and got the response on 28th aug, 2014.

Judicial review on 11 Sep, 2014 refused on papers and then renewed oral application on 1 July, 2015.

Oral hearing refused on 1st July, 2015 by upper tribunal Judges Jordan and Frances.

Permission to court of appeal Appeal filed on 6th July, 2015.

Court of appeal grant permission on 16th Dec, 2015 and remit to Upper tribunal.

Appeal heard again on upper tribunal on 4th Aug, 2016 and refused.

Second Court of Appeal filed on 7th September 2016.

Court of appeal decision: Refusing permission to appeal on 5th July, 2017.

Permission to get Oral hearing on my case on 15th feb, 2018.

[Rockey]

sorry to hear mate..
which bank statement was not on your name , business or personel bank statement ? As business bank will always on your business name , can not be on ur name !!

[marcnath]

What was the reason for refusal the second time you applied - I assume you corrected the bank statements by then

[alisafdar2018]

sorry to hear mate..
which bank statement was not on your name , business or personel bank statement ? As business bank will always on your business name , can not be on ur name !!

Hi,

There are two categories to apply Entrepreneur visa one is money is available to invest and the other is money is already invested. I applied under the category of money is available but I put all my savings of £50,000/- into my business bank account and Home Office considers my case in a second category because the money is already invested, and it's sitting in a business bank account.

Further, I also didn't submit my audited/unaudited accounts and they also didn't bother to ask me to provide the accounts.

The only problem is that I transferred the money into business bank account to show that it is available to invest and not already invested but it's really hard to explain them because they are not considering my case practically.

I got one postive response from court of appeal judge and he told us that Home Office decision is very harsh and rigid against my case and they should consider my case practically and my case remit to upper tribunal and I lost the case again due to same reason.

I have applied second time to court of appeal and asking them to give permission to appeal and my hearing is on 15th Feb, 2018.

I would be very grateful if someone knows any good barrister who can advise me further in my case.

[marcnath]

Ok, I understand the reason why your first rejection happened in May 2013. It was harsh but correct as per the rules and you would have been aware that your chance of success in an Appeal was low.
But what I am not clear about was why the application you made in June 2014 was rejected ? Did you not correct the documents during that application ? You had one year to correct the problem.
The Forum rules do not allow members to recommend barristers, so that is not a help you will get from this forum.

[alisafdar2018]

Ok, I understand the reason why your first rejection happened in May 2013. It was harsh but correct as per the rules and you would have been aware that your chance of success in an Appeal was low.
But what I am not clear about was why the application you made in June 2014 was rejected ? Did you not correct the documents during that application ? You had one year to correct the problem.
The Forum rules do not allow members to recommend barristers, so that is not a help you will get from this forum.

In my first application I got the right of appeal but I withdrawn my appeal and applied a new fresh application in that application I did a mistake that I transferred all my money in a business account and I ticked the box in a form that the money is available to invest and I didn't submit any audited/unaudited accounts.

But, Home office is saying once you put your money in the business account it is invested money and the bank statement is not under your name so, you can not qualify 25 points for the funds available.

[marcnath]

ok. So the funding issue was the reason for the rejection of your second application.
I can only wish you luck with your appeal.
It appears to be a tough case but not entirely unhopeful.
UKVI has just changed the rules to remove the requirement that the business statement should have your name for investment evidence - that should help you argue that it was an unreasonable requirement in the first place. However, the fact that you did not submit accounts make it tough.

The guidelines also says:
Money available to your business
If the money is available to your business, rather than to you as an individual, you must also provide a Companies House document showing the address of the business’s registered office in the UK, or head office in the UK if it has no registered office. The Companies House document must also show that you are a director if your business is a company or that you are a member if your business is a partnership.

So, if you have supplied the companies house document above, you should also be able to argue that money in the business meets the requirement for "available funds"

Anyway, all the best.

[alisafdar2018]

Hi , Thanks for the quick reply , Could you please give me the reference where the guideline says :

Money available to your business
If the money is available to your business, rather than to you as an individual, you must also provide a Companies House document showing the address of the business’s registered office in the UK, or head office in the UK if it has no registered office. The Companies House document must also show that you are a director if your business is a company or that you are a member if your business is a partnership.

I need a reference for this .
Thanks in advance.

[alisafdar2018]

Hi,
Kindly ignore my last query. Could you please give me the reference from where you quote this
"UKVI has just changed the rules to remove the requirement that the business statement should have your name for investment evidence"

I need to present this in front of my barrister who can argue on that point.

[marcnath]

uk-tier-1-entrepreneur-visas/change-in- ... 44913.html

[alisafdar2018]

ok. So the funding issue was the reason for the rejection of your second application.
I can only wish you luck with your appeal.
It appears to be a tough case but not entirely unhopeful.
UKVI has just changed the rules to remove the requirement that the business statement should have your name for investment evidence - that should help you argue that it was an unreasonable requirement in the first place. However, the fact that you did not submit accounts make it tough.

The guidelines also says:
Money available to your business
If the money is available to your business, rather than to you as an individual, you must also provide a Companies House document showing the address of the business’s registered office in the UK, or head office in the UK if it has no registered office. The Companies House document must also show that you are a director if your business is a company or that you are a member if your business is a partnership.

So, if you have supplied the companies house document above, you should also be able to argue that money in the business meets the requirement for "available funds"

Anyway, all the best.

Hi,

Many thanks for sharing the new changes in the immigration rules.

I have one concerned that if the Home Office Barrister argues that we took the decision accordingly at the time of the immigration rules, and the new rules doesn't apply to your case then we will defend us on his argument, because judegs usually listens to Home Office and their favour always go with them and they don't think it practically.

[marcnath]

ok. So the funding issue was the reason for the rejection of your second application.
I can only wish you luck with your appeal.
It appears to be a tough case but not entirely unhopeful.
UKVI has just changed the rules to remove the requirement that the business statement should have your name for investment evidence - that should help you argue that it was an unreasonable requirement in the first place. However, the fact that you did not submit accounts make it tough.

The guidelines also says:
Money available to your business
If the money is available to your business, rather than to you as an individual, you must also provide a Companies House document showing the address of the business’s registered office in the UK, or head office in the UK if it has no registered office. The Companies House document must also show that you are a director if your business is a company or that you are a member if your business is a partnership.

So, if you have supplied the companies house document above, you should also be able to argue that money in the business meets the requirement for "available funds"

Anyway, all the best.

Hi,

Many thanks for sharing the new changes in the immigration rules.

I have one concerned that if the Home Office Barrister argues that we took the decision accordingly at the time of the immigration rules, and the new rules doesn't apply to your case then we will defend us on his argument, because judegs usually listens to Home Office and their favour always go with them and they don't think it practically.

You are right and they will probably argue that. But you have nothing to lose in trying it.

[zamaha]

ok. So the funding issue was the reason for the rejection of your second application.
I can only wish you luck with your appeal.
It appears to be a tough case but not entirely unhopeful.
UKVI has just changed the rules to remove the requirement that the business statement should have your name for investment evidence - that should help you argue that it was an unreasonable requirement in the first place. However, the fact that you did not submit accounts make it tough.

The guidelines also says:
Money available to your business
If the money is available to your business, rather than to you as an individual, you must also provide a Companies House document showing the address of the business’s registered office in the UK, or head office in the UK if it has no registered office. The Companies House document must also show that you are a director if your business is a company or that you are a member if your business is a partnership.

So, if you have supplied the companies house document above, you should also be able to argue that money in the business meets the requirement for "available funds"

Anyway, all the best.

Hi,

Many thanks for sharing the new changes in the immigration rules.

I have one concerned that if the Home Office Barrister argues that we took the decision accordingly at the time of the immigration rules, and the new rules doesn't apply to your case then we will defend us on his argument, because judegs usually listens to Home Office and their favour always go with them and they don't think it practically.

You are right and they will probably argue that. But you have nothing to lose in trying it.

Hi monarch,
If rules changed while your application is still pending and new rules are in your favour, are caseworkers going to apply new rules or not?

[zimba]

Rules on the day of your application apply to your case. Later rule changes will not apply to your case

[zamaha]

Thanks Zimba

[mohsensari]

Rules on the day of your application apply to your case. Later rule changes will not apply to your case

Dear Zimba,
In some section of guidance they are not changing the rules they are correcting themselves.
Is it arguable?

[zamaha]

Regarding the problems of Alisafdar2018
2 years ago while I was preparing visa documents, as I was keeping all my money in business ban account and my application was for initial, I called HO and asked them can I claim money kept in business account as the money available to invest only by providing bank statement to show how much money is available along with bank’s letter to mention that I am the only signatury of the account (because guidance said clearly that only letter from the bank is accepted), they said yes but I need to send companies house document to prove I am the director as well. Although I did provide director loan and all its requirements to be on the safe side, but they said to me that and it was almost 2 years ago before they actually change the rules.

[marcnath]

Rules on the day of your application apply to your case. Later rule changes will not apply to your case

Dear Zimba,
In some section of guidance they are not changing the rules they are correcting themselves.
Is it arguable?

Everything is arguable and you should make as many reasonable arguments as you can. HO does have discretion authority so it is impossible to say which ones will be accepted and which will not.
But it is clear that if you don’t make the argument HO will not do that for you. It is also clear that there is no negative impact to making reasonable and considered arguments

[alisafdar2018]

ok. So the funding issue was the reason for the rejection of your second application.
I can only wish you luck with your appeal.
It appears to be a tough case but not entirely unhopeful.
UKVI has just changed the rules to remove the requirement that the business statement should have your name for investment evidence - that should help you argue that it was an unreasonable requirement in the first place. However, the fact that you did not submit accounts make it tough.

The guidelines also says:
Money available to your business
If the money is available to your business, rather than to you as an individual, you must also provide a Companies House document showing the address of the business’s registered office in the UK, or head office in the UK if it has no registered office. The Companies House document must also show that you are a director if your business is a company or that you are a member if your business is a partnership.

So, if you have supplied the companies house document above, you should also be able to argue that money in the business meets the requirement for "available funds"

Anyway, all the best.

Hi,

Many thanks for sharing the new changes in the immigration rules.

I have one concerned that if the Home Office Barrister argues that we took the decision accordingly at the time of the immigration rules, and the new rules doesn't apply to your case then we will defend us on his argument, because judegs usually listens to Home Office and their favour always go with them and they don't think it practically.

Hi marcnath,

I would like to ask one more question that while I am waiting for my permission to appeal hearing. Can I apply Tier 2 visa application?

Whic COS I need either an unrestricted or restricted COS?

My PSW visa already expired on 12-Nov-12.

[CR001]

Hi marcnath,

I would like to ask one more question that while I am waiting for my permission to appeal hearing. Can I apply Tier 2 visa application?

Whic COS I need either an unrestricted or restricted COS?

My PSW visa already expired on 12-Nov-12.

Please ask your tier 2 questions in the topic you already started in the Tier 2 sub forum, it is not relevant in the Tier 1 Ent sub forum.

uk-tier-2-employer-sponsored-visas/tier ... l#p1594331

You cannot make a new application while you have an appeal pending.