# Settlement visa refused



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

My wife settlement visa has been refused in Feburary 2014 because of my employer payed my tax late of December 2013 and I was in India in whole January 2014. Now I am appealing the decision and got a hearing a hearing date on 5 Jan 2015. Please help me. What will happen at appeal hearing and what kind of question will be asked?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I don't know all your details and what documents you submitted, but I feel you don't stand a chance of winning your appeal. It seems you were correctly turned down for not meeting the requirements even if it was your employer who failed to pay tax. If your pay was lower because you were away, then it's just bad luck.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> I don't know all your details and what documents you submitted, but I feel you don't stand a chance of winning your appeal. It seems you were correctly turned down for not meeting the requirements even if it was your employer who failed to pay tax. If your pay was lower because you were away, then it's just bad luck.


I earn over 33k per year. Thats not my fault if my employer failed to pay the a month tax on time. The HMRC guideline totally show that the employer is responsible for paying tax and there is no role of employee in it. As a employee, I get P60 each year which show the tax is paid. The tax was paid and i have p60 and letter from HMRC to confirm it but the whole tax thing is between my employer and HMRC and i had no role in it. is home office think that a employee will go itself to HMRC to pay its tax because the employer failed to pay the tax on time.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

It is an individuals responsibility to ensure they are paying any tax due even if they are payee and dont file a return. This is why pay slips are compulsory to enable you to chase up any issues you spot. It is your tax liability not your employers.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

_shel said:


> It is an individuals responsibility to ensure they are paying any tax due even if they are payee and dont file a return. This is why pay slips are compulsory to enable you to chase up any issues you spot. It is your tax liability not your employers.


How do I suppose to know that my tax is paid or not. I get payslip every month which show that tax and NIC has been paid. Now the left is for the employer to pay the tax. Do I suppose to contact HMRC every month to know that my tax is paid or not? The HMRC guidance for employee totally states that employee must ensure to get P60 at the end of tax year which a get which show that the tax has been paid and P45 at the end of employment. Just tell me that is there any person in UK who call HMRC every month to know that is his tax paid or not? Just tell me whose fault is here? My or my employer who paid tax lately.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

Yes I see what you are saying and you are partially right but the Law says tax is stil a personal responsibility not that can be delegated to someone else or an employer unless you are not of sound mind and have a Court Order in place to have someone else deal with your affairs.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

_shel said:


> Yes I see what you are saying and you are partially right but the Law says tax is stil a personal responsibility not that can be delegated to someone else or an employer unless you are not of sound mind and have a Court Order in place to have someone else deal with your affairs.


I know that but the income tax and class 1 national insurance is a liability of employer not employee and it is the duty of employer to how pay the tax not the employee and the employee duty is see that right tax calculation has been done on payslips and P60 and according to HMRC:-

PAYE90020 - Reconcile individual: underpayments: PAYE directions
If an employer fails to deduct the correct amount of PAYE from an employee’s earnings, the employer is liable for the amount under-deducted. The underpayment should be recovered from the employer not the taxpayer, unless HMRC makes a PAYE direction.
Regulations 72(5) and 81(4) of the Income Tax (PAYE) Regulations 2003 govern the making of directions, which can be made if
•	The employer took reasonable care to comply with the Regulations, and the failure to deduct the correct amount was due to an error made in good faith (regulation 72(5) condition A - the ‘honest mistake’)
Or
•	The employer cannot pay the liability (for example due to insolvency, ceased trading) and the taxpayer knew that the employer had wilfully failed to deduct the correct amount of PAYE (regulations 72(5) condition B and 81(4) condition A - the ‘deliberate failure’)




By reading this you can understand that the employer is liable to pay the tax and it is his how and when he pay the tax. According to HMRC, he can pay the tax lately. If a person is self employed, then he is liable to pay his own tax. Now I think you will understand my point.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I don't think Home Office is interested in all that. Their rule states correct tax must have been paid on your pay before you can submit it towards meeting the financial requirement. As it wasn't the case, your submission was inadmissible and visa was refused. Ok, you didn't know about your tax situation and it's not your responsibility under PAYE, but that doesn't cut any ice with Home Office. I suppose you can sue your employer for the financial loss (loss of visa fees) and distress caused, but I don't know what good that will do.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> I don't think Home Office is interested in all that. Their rule states correct tax must have been paid on your pay before you can submit it towards meeting the financial requirement. As it wasn't the case, your submission was inadmissible and visa was refused. Ok, you didn't know about your tax situation and it's not your responsibility under PAYE, but that doesn't cut any ice with Home Office. I suppose you can sue your employer for the financial loss (loss of visa fees) and distress caused, but I don't know what good that will do.


You are not understanding my point. I can't force my employer to pay my visa fee and for my stress because the tax thing is between my employer and HMRC and there is no role of me and home office in it. The employer has right to pay the tax any time. I submitted all document according to Appendix FM-Se and there is nothing written there you must ensure that to check with HMRC before applying visa. I submitted a my 12 months payslip , 12 month bank statement , letter from employer and employment contract and they refuse it because they do not find record of my 12th month payslip with HMRC. If they think, I am not genuine employer then they must contact my employer to verify it. The judge must consider my argument with respect of appendix FM.

Why are you saying that the Home Office will not interested in HMRC thing. If they gave their decision on the basis of HMRC data, then they must consider these rules also.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

You do not understand immigration Law does not take into account tax Law. Immigration rules are specific and must be met regardless of what any other Law or regulation states or what you feel you cant control. In applying for a visa it is your responsibility to meet the immigration rules and requirements of the visa you are applying for.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

_shel said:


> You do not understand immigration Law does not take into account tax Law. Immigration rules are specific and must be met regardless of what any other Law or regulation states or what you feel you cant control. In applying for a visa it is your responsibility to meet the immigration rules and requirements of the visa you are applying for.


If you are saying so, then please tell me where it has been written in Appendix FM that applicant must check with HMRC about their tax or something like that. These all are requirement for self employed not full time employed.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

According to Home Office, correct tax wasn't deducted from you pay when you submitted your pay details, and since according to their rules, it should have been, your application was refused for not meeting the requirement. This is regardless of who is to blame, who is responsible for paying taxes etc. OK, you didn't know about it and feel hard done by, and you think you have done nothing wrong, but according to the immigration rules, you failed to meet the requirement.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

You are not a child. Appendix FM does not need to tell you every little step you must take to ensure you meet the requirements. 

You are given the requirements and as an adult are expected to use your brains to ensure you meet them before applying.

In the UK ignorance of the Law is not a defence to get around the Law, for every Law and procedure not just immigration. Nor is there a requirement on the Government to inform you of every Law or regulation you may face in life


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

maniani said:


> If you are saying so, then please tell me where it has been written in Appendix FM that applicant must check with HMRC about their tax or something like that. These all are requirement for self employed not full time employed.


It doesn't say so, but there is no need for it. Correct tax must have been deducted, and since this wasn't done, your submission wasn't acceptable. OK, unless and until you complete your own self-assessment tax return, there was no way of knowing that your employer did or didn't do their job correctly, but Home Office isn't interested in all that. You may think it's a sneaky rule to punish the innocent, but that's the name of the game.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

It really is a bit of a minefield, the application process. I was cursing for months that I am self-employed and had to get all the paperwork and then I was quite pissed off when I got all the paperwork required for the new rules only to realise that I didn't need it as I am applying under the old rules. It never occurred to me that working for someone else may carry its own problems and may mean you have less control of the situation and you end up worse off in the end.

That being said, and even though you were correctly (if a bit unfairly) refused, I do wish you all the best with the appeal - I feel you were a bit hard done by. A friend of mine got refused a couple of years ago (quite correctly I thought) for not supplying original bank statements and she did win it on appeal (she said the whole appeal took 15 minutes) so maybe you can win your appeal as well. Though I think the appeal (lawyers) cost more than a fresh application. It's just one of those things in life which is not at all fair but there is not much you can do about it. Do let us know how the appeal went.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

ashkevron said:


> It really is a bit of a minefield, the application process. I was cursing for months that I am self-employed and had to get all the paperwork and then I was quite pissed off when I got all the paperwork required for the new rules only to realise that I didn't need it as I am applying under the old rules. It never occurred to me that working for someone else may carry its own problems and may mean you have less control of the situation and you end up worse off in the end.
> 
> That being said, and even though you were correctly (if a bit unfairly) refused, I do wish you all the best with the appeal - I feel you were a bit hard done by. A friend of mine got refused a couple of years ago (quite correctly I thought) for not supplying original bank statements and she did win it on appeal (she said the whole appeal took 15 minutes) so maybe you can win your appeal as well. Though I think the appeal (lawyers) cost more than a fresh application. It's just one of those things in life which is not at all fair but there is not much you can do about it. Do let us know how the appeal went.


Thanks for your sympathy. The ECO refused the visa application because he believed that i ceased employment before the visa application because he did not find the tax record of my last month salary whereas i am still employed with same employer earning over 33k. The tax was paid lately by employer but it was paid. I have letters from HMRC to prove that i am still employed and had paid right tax.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

Nothing much you can do now, don't destroy your health stressing over it. From what my friend told me, appeals are not really scary, the first part she said was establishing identities and then a very short overview of the problem and then the judge makes his/her decision and that's all. I think she said in her case the whole thing took about 15 minutes or so.

As I said, she was fully at fault, she applied with electronic bank statements so I thought there was no way her appeal would be granted but it was. You can never tell for certain. Your situation is a bit different and your appeal may be refused or granted but no one here knows what will happen - we can make an educated guess, that's all. Make sure you have a good lawyer, that's the most important thing as so many of them are really bad (majority even I'd say) and sit back and relax.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

ashkevron said:


> Nothing much you can do now, don't destroy your health stressing over it. From what my friend told me, appeals are not really scary, the first part she said was establishing identities and then a very short overview of the problem and then the judge makes his/her decision and that's all. I think she said in her case the whole thing took about 15 minutes or so.
> 
> As I said, she was fully at fault, she applied with electronic bank statements so I thought there was no way her appeal would be granted but it was. You can never tell for certain. Your situation is a bit different and your appeal may be refused or granted but no one here knows what will happen - we can make an educated guess, that's all. Make sure you have a good lawyer, that's the most important thing as so many of them are really bad (majority even I'd say) and sit back and relax.


I am hiring a good barrister for appeal hearing. I am also taking my company accountant with me to witness that i am genuine employee and the tax stuff is between the company and HMRC and i have no role in it. Will this increase my chance to win the appeal?


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

I don't know, I personally have never had any dealings with the UK law, but I guess it can't hurt... your lawyer should know more about it.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

maniani said:


> I am hiring a good barrister for appeal hearing. I am also taking my company accountant with me to witness that i am genuine employee and the tax stuff is between the company and HMRC and i have no role in it. Will this increase my chance to win the appeal?


You didn't tell us about the precise ground for refusal until now. You can't expect to get proper advice from us (all given without legal liability as none of us are qualified immigration lawyer/advisor) without giving us the full story. We base our advice on our knowledge and experience in immigration matters (in my case over 40 years). 
If the reason for your refusal was mainly to do with no or incorrect tax has been paid, I don't think you stand much of a chance of winning. Besides, it will take an awful long time to get your tribunal hearing - average wait is a year, and it's much better just to reapply once you know you can meet the requirements in full.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> You didn't tell us about the precise ground for refusal until now. You can't expect to get proper advice from us (all given without legal liability as none of us are qualified immigration lawyer/advisor) without giving us the full story. We base our advice on our knowledge and experience in immigration matters (in my case over 40 years).
> If the reason for your refusal was mainly to do with no or incorrect tax has been paid, I don't think you stand much of a chance of winning. Besides, it will take an awful long time to get your tribunal hearing - average wait is a year, and it's much better just to reapply once you know you can meet the requirements in full.


But they refuse me on the basis of ceasing my employment which I never ceased. Do you think I stand a chance for winning appeal. I am working with my company over 3 year and I have document to prove it. They don't find my tax of that month and they think O ceased the employment but I was still working and have lot a contract to prove that i am hired by my company for five years.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

What was the exact wording of the refusal?


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

ashkevron said:


> What was the exact wording of the refusal?


The link to original refusal letter is below


[Sorry, we don't allow link to a rival site. You need to reproduce your Home Office letter or copy the content - Mod]


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

The refusal letter


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

Right, again I know nothing about the UK law whatsoever so this is just a very neutral opinion. 

They definitely doubt that you were ever employed so I think taking the company accountant with you is a very good idea. Make sure that there are no issues or inconsistencies (I think you said the tax was paid in December but they say it way paid on the last day of November as far as I can see, you don't want to be sloppy, your lawyer should make sure it's all correct). And I think then it depends on a judge, I don't think it's a lost cause but I don't think it's a certain win either. Personally, I think you're more likely to win your case than not, as long as you can prove you were employed but I am maybe an unrealistically optimistic person...


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

ashkevron said:


> Right, again I know nothing about the UK law whatsoever so this is just a very neutral opinion.
> 
> They definitely doubt that you were ever employed so I think taking the company accountant with you is a very good idea. Make sure that there are no issues or inconsistencies (I think you said the tax was paid in December but they say it way paid on the last day of November as far as I can see, you don't want to be sloppy, your lawyer should make sure it's all correct). And I think then it depends on a judge, I don't think it's a lost cause but I don't think it's a certain win either. Personally, I think you're more likely to win your case than not, as long as you can prove you were employed but I am maybe an unrealistically optimistic person...


The tax of december was paid in january so they think i ceased my employment in november.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

Actually that reads that they believe the entire employment used for the application was fake and that you ended it in Nov. 

Was this employer your own company, a friends or family?


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

_shel said:


> Actually that reads that they believe the entire employment used for the application was fake and that you ended it in Nov.
> 
> Was this employer your own company, a friends or family?


No, i have no relationship with company. My income suddenly increased because I passesd the test for driving forklift, dumper, roller and other construction work vechicle. I become eligible to become Foreman after passing all tests. So thats why my income increased but Home office think this all employment is fake. But I am a genuine employer and my pay increased due to my promotion and passing all tests. I also have certificate and qualification to prove this.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

Well, dont know about the accountant helping but having every pay slip, your P60s, contract, job offer letters if you were promoted. Yes your qualifications, you can point out where the dates coincided with promotion. If still employed there anything you have had since like pay slips etc to show its ongoing with the same company.

Funny because I'm trying to get my head around their logic. They say they do not feel it was genuine employment but say bar Nov+ you were paid and tax paid. So it was employment???? Surely so long as you were employed legally that is all that matters, dont suppose it would matter if you were employed in a job you couldn't actually do by your mum so long as it was legal.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

So do i have chance of winning appeal in your opinion?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

If you can prove the employment was not contrived, was genuine and legal and it will continue yes. Though how you prove that I dont know. An accountant cant prove that, your wage leap was huge and not a normal progression or even wage for the role fir most. Official documents that are checkable are the best way to prove it, ie tax documents, as statements from others wont help if they believe they helped you make up the employment.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

_shel said:


> If you can prove the employment was not contrived, was genuine and legal and it will continue yes. Though how you prove that I dont know. An accountant cant prove that, your wage leap was huge and not a normal progression or even wage for the role fir most. Official documents that are checkable are the best way to prove it, ie tax documents, as statements from others wont help if they believe they helped you make up the employment.


I have employment history from HMRC which prove that I am employed with same company and paying tax as appropriate. Will this help me?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

Yes I think so, along with evidence you continue to be employed there. You can ask HMRC for your tax record so you can use it as evidence along with the other documents like payslips, P60s, contract of employment, promotion letter etc


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

_shel said:


> Yes I think so, along with evidence you continue to be employed there. You can ask HMRC for your tax record so you can use it as evidence along with the other documents like payslips, P60s, contract of employment, promotion letter etc


Yes I have all of this. I have also tax record from HRMC. So will it be fine in court?


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

No idea, I assume they have some evidence or information they believe proves their case for refusal or they wouldn't have refused. Depending what that is you could well lose. 

You know you may have an extremely long wait for a hearing? Or have you been given a date already?

You will need to show that the wage you claim you get is legal and normal. You have project management qualifications or a related degree because the heavy goods licences are normal for jobbers and not necessarily needed to be a site manager.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

_shel said:


> No idea, I assume they have some evidence or information they believe proves their case for refusal or they wouldn't have refused. Depending what that is you could well lose.
> 
> You know you may have an extremely long wait for a hearing? Or have you been given a date already?
> 
> You will need to show that the wage you claim you get is legal and normal. You have project management qualifications or a related degree because the heavy goods licences are normal for jobbers and not necessarily needed to be a site manager.


I got my hearing date on 5 January at Newport. I had already received ECM review report and the home office are relying only on a statement from HMRC which don't show my december 2013 tax and so they doubted my employment. But I have all document to prove that my company payed my right tax and i am a qualified worker. It is not easy to become a foreman in construction work. It require a lot of qualification and experience in various field of construction work . A foreman must be able to drive all construction vechicles and must supervise over all workers. So I have lot of certificate from City and Guilds and CSCS to prove this.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

I really think you should be fine. UK judges as far as I've heard are actually quite good, neutral and reasonable and I think you have a strong case. It's important you have a good lawyer so they don't mess something up for you, but based on the reason you were refused (that they doubt you were employed) and based on the evidence you have (HMRC documents, payslips, certificates explaining your promotion and such) I'd say it's reasonably clear you were employed and their doubt is unfounded.

I do not know if they can still refuse you because the documents you submitted during your application were not sufficient, clear enough or on some other technicality but as I said, I think you should be fine. It's not some complicated case where you are not fulfilling the requirements or have lied to the UKVI or anything like that, it should be a simple case of some confusion over the paperwork, which can hopefully be sorted out and some misplaced doubt on their part. I expect the entire hearing will take less than half an hour. Again, I have no experience with the UK law whatsoever, but as far as common sense goes, you should be OK in my opinion. Do let us know how it went, it will probably help people who are reading the forum in the future.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

ashkevron said:


> I really think you should be fine. UK judges as far as I've heard are actually quite good, neutral and reasonable and I think you have a strong case. It's important you have a good lawyer so they don't mess something up for you, but based on the reason you were refused (that they doubt you were employed) and based on the evidence you have (HMRC documents, payslips, certificates explaining your promotion and such) I'd say it's reasonably clear you were employed and their doubt is unfounded.
> 
> I do not know if they can still refuse you because the documents you submitted during your application were not sufficient, clear enough or on some other technicality but as I said, I think you should be fine. It's not some complicated case where you are not fulfilling the requirements or have lied to the UKVI or anything like that, it should be a simple case of some confusion over the paperwork, which can hopefully be sorted out and some misplaced doubt on their part. I expect the entire hearing will take less than half an hour. Again, I have no experience with the UK law whatsoever, but as far as common sense goes, you should be OK in my opinion. Do let us know how it went, it will probably help people who are reading the forum in the future.


Thanks gor your advice. I do have a good barrister which is insuring me. I will let everyone know about the appeal.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

In significant number of tribunal hearings, Home Office don't even bother to defend.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> In significant number of tribunal hearings, Home Office don't even bother to defend.


So there will be no home office presenting officer at court? I don't understand what you are trying to say.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Which means you will win by default, as there is nobody from Home Office (usually a lawyer) to defend the case. But don't count on it, as they do defend the rest of the cases.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Which means you will win by default, as there is nobody from Home Office (usually a lawyer) to defend the case. But don't count on it, as they do defend the rest of the cases.


Are they not attending all visa appeals and whats the reason behind this?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

No. Why? Don't know, but they may suspect they will lose. They may expect a lot of people to give up having to wait a year for tribunal hearing, and for those who persist till the bitter end, they just cut their losses and save the expense of defending (though the judge may still award your costs against them).


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> No. Why? Don't know, but they may suspect they will lose. They may expect a lot of people to give up having to wait a year for tribunal hearing, and for those who persist till the bitter end, they just cut their losses and save the expense of defending (though the judge may still award your costs against them).


Ok. Thanks for the info. I also think they will not attend ny hearing because I have a strong case against them. What do you think Joppa. Hod long it will take to get me a decision after hearing? Will the judge gave the decision on the same hearing day or later?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

You don't know. Sometimes the judge reserves judgement to buy more time, but usually for immigration and asylum tribunal, you get it there and then. But Home Office can still appeal against the judgement so you have to wait even if you win. So it may take several weeks (sometimes months) before you get your visa.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> You don't know. Sometimes the judge reserves judgement to buy more time, but usually for immigration and asylum tribunal, you get it there and then. But Home Office can still appeal against the judgement so you have to wait even if you win. So it may take several weeks (sometimes months) before you get your visa.


But if home office appeal again, then how much time then it will take? thanks for your previous reply. You all moderators guys are doing great job!!!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Months more usually for Upper Tribunal hearing, and they will defend.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

From my friend's experience, the Home Office actually did send a lawyer, the hearing, according to her, went something like this: it started by identities being established, the judge asking what the issue was, Home Office stating the internet print-outs were submitted instead of the original bank statements, as was the requirement, her lawyer stating she was registered for online statements rather than the paper ones, the judge asking if the print-outs of the online statements correctly reflected the state of her accounts, establishing that they did and granting the appeal. The entire thing according to her took about 15 minutes and cost about 2000 pounds in her lawyers fees. The Home Office did not appeal.

This however happened maybe two years ago and I think some pressure is being put on judges not to grant the appeals this easily (I personally thought she should have had her appeal refused cause she was in the wrong). But I think you did hardly anything wrong and certainly going by their reason for refusal, your appeal should be granted once it's established you were actually employed.


----------



## topo morto (May 24, 2014)

ashkevron said:


> I personally thought she should have had her appeal refused cause she was in the wrong.


Just if you know - where in law does it say that online statements are not allowable? 

(I am aware of the requirements for original documents mentioned in Annex FM Section FM 1.7 - but I guess that document itself is not "the law of the land"?)


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

topo morto said:


> Just if you know - where in law does it say that online statements are not allowable?
> 
> (I am aware of the requirements for original documents mentioned in Annex FM Section FM 1.7 - but I guess that document itself is not "the law of the land"?)


 Immigration regulations, encompassing Annex FM and others are Law.


----------



## topo morto (May 24, 2014)

I thought (In my ignorance?!) that in the UK there was common law and statute law and that statute law basically meant an act of parliament... is Annex 1.7 actually part of any of the acts? If not, what part of what act gives the rules in Annex 1.7 their authority? Or maybe I'm mistaken in my basic assumptions..?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

It's the immigration rules that have the force of law, and any is to be changed, deleted or new one added, government must present it to Parliament as statutory instrument (SI) and then it becomes legally enforceable. What is contained in Annexes and in Immigration Directorate's Instructions is how Home Office applies the rules. While they don't have the full force of the law, unless they are shown to contradict the immigration rules in a court of law, they can use them to process applications and make decisions. So for example the immigration rules state that applicant must present evidence to show they meet the financial requirement. In FM1.7 it states how they can meet the requirement and what evidence they require, such as 6-month bank statement, online statement to be verified etc. So if you only send 3-month worth of statement or it is simply printed off the internet, Home Office can say that the applicant has failed to show the required evidence as laid down in immigration rules and therefore the application is to be refused.


----------



## topo morto (May 24, 2014)

Thank you. 

So it's these : https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-rules
that are effectively "the law" relating to immigration? Is there a simple explanation of how these relate to the Immigration Acts?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

You can look up immigration acts on gov.uk site. Or read the relevant statutory instrument which has extensive references to immigration acts.
IDI (Immigration Directorate Instructions) show how Home Office applies the act and rules. see https://www.gov.uk/immigration-operational-guidance


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

_Statutory Instruments - UK Parliament

Statutory instruments are made in a variety of forms, most commonly Orders in Council, regulations, rules and orders. The form to be adopted is usually set out in the enabling Act.

Statutory Instruments, also known as SIs, are a form of legislation which allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act. They are also referred to as secondary, delegated or subordinate legislation.

Acts of Parliament confer powers on Ministers to make more detailed orders, rules or regulations by means of statutory instruments. An Act will often contain a broad framework and statutory instruments are used to provide the necessary detail that would be too complex to include in the Act itself.

Statutory instruments can also be used to amend, update or enforce existing primary legislation._


----------



## topo morto (May 24, 2014)

Interesting.

Anyway the thing about originals is in Appendix FM-SE so it would be interesting to know the legal reasoning in ashkevron's friend's case...


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

The only thing I can think of is that it was on the basis that she wasn't registered for paper statements and that the internet print-outs were in some way seen as originals, especially since they were not in any financially relevant way different from what she would have received in the bank. I think the Home Office lawyer admitted this when asked. But I thought she was so incredibly lucky to get away with it.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

I am happy to see everyone talking to each other.


----------



## _shel (Mar 2, 2014)

That will be it. Most have online statements and utility bills now so they are originals. Would only not be the case if they actually had a paper one then submitted a print out instead  good to know though. Wouldn't advise everyone to do it if they could avoid doing so but will help some as there are fully online accounts now, no choice.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

The thing is, though, allowing online statement printed at home to all may lead to fraud, when some people fake online statement with fictitious financial information. As such evidence is crucial in determining one's eligibility, they can't take chances.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

My guess is that she was lucky with the judge being reasonable and maybe following the spirit of the law more than the letter of the law. But it seems that small oversights like that can win on appeal which is why I think the OP should be OK on appeal even though the judges are I think being pushed to be more stringent.

It's just that, with all the money she spent on the appeal, it would have actually been both cheaper and faster to reply, she just didn't want to have a refused visa on her immigration record. 

I would never recommend using the printed out statements, it's way too risky, but I do think they seem to slowly be creeping in. Only last month when I was applying for the ILR in Solihull, as I said before, a woman who came in was basically begging the staff to give her 30 minutes so she can nip off to the bank and get stamped bank statements and the staff going to talk to case officers and returning and telling her they checked and the printed-out statements are perfectly fine and acceptable. But until the official guidelines change, it's just silly to risk the application over something so small.

I don't see how printed statements can lead to fraud, because certainly forged statements would have to have completely different balances and all?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

ashkevron said:


> I don't see how printed statements can lead to fraud, because certainly forged statements would have to have completely different balances and all?


If they generally allow statement printed off the internet, a fraudster can create a fictitious statement that shows they meet the requirement.


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

Joppa said:


> If they generally allow statement printed off the internet, a fraudster can create a fictitious statement that shows they meet the requirement.


But there is nothing preventing them from doing that now and claiming those are original statements? There is not much difference between the Barclays online statements and regular paper statements, I don't know about other banks.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Well, original statement is on Barclays stock paper and with coloured logo and blue frames, which is more difficult to copy and easier to detect. Online statement can be something you can re-create easily with your word processor, and is printed on normal office paper.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Any more advice for proving genuinity of job as hearing is on Monday.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Please give me some advice for my hearing which is tomorrow at Newport...


----------



## ashkevron (May 1, 2012)

Calm down, relax, you have a lawyer so it's really his job to think and do what's best. There's nothing much you can do now, you've done everything you could do. Good luck and let us know how it goes.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

I want to share my today appeal experience.

I went to tribunal at 9 A.M and there my barrister was already waiting for me. I showed him all my document and we discussed the case. The appeal started at 10:10 A.M. The judge came and my barrister told him all situation. The judge asked me to show my passport which i showed him. The person from Home Office was not interested and he didn't even bother to ask question. He just asked me whether the company director is my friend or relative to which I replied no and he said Home Office will not pay me any fee award(What does this mean). The appeal ended in 30 minutes and judge told me he will send his decision within two weeks. Please tell me your suggestion on my appeal.


----------



## chiefteaofficer (May 27, 2014)

maniani said:


> I want to share my today appeal experience.
> 
> I went to tribunal at 9 A.M and there my barrister was already waiting for me. I showed him all my document and we discussed the case. The appeal started at 10:10 A.M. The judge came and my barrister told him all situation. The judge asked me to show my passport which i showed him. The person from Home Office was not interested and he didn't even bother to ask question. He just asked me whether the company director is my friend or relative to which I replied no and he said Home Office will not pay me any fee award(What does this mean). The appeal ended in 30 minutes and judge told me he will send his decision within two weeks. Please tell me your suggestion on my appeal.


The "Home Office will not pay you any fee award" just means they will not award you any financial reimbursement or monies with regards to this case. I don't know if you were trying to get any money from the Home Office or not, but I'm sure you just want to get your Visa decision reversed to a positive result.

Based on this information I don't think anyone can guess what the judge was thinking... You'll just have to wait and see. It was very short, so maybe that's a good sign?


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

chiefteaofficer said:


> The "Home Office will not pay you any fee award" just means they will not award you any financial reimbursement or monies with regards to this case. I don't know if you were trying to get any money from the Home Office or not, but I'm sure you just want to get your Visa decision reversed to a positive result.
> 
> Based on this information I don't think anyone can guess what the judge was thinking... You'll just have to wait and see. It was very short, so maybe that's a good sign?


The hearing was quite short. The judge just asked me 2or 3 question and to which i replied and he said ok. The home office presenting office just asked me 2 or 3 question and was not interested in agruement with my barrister. i don't know why? I did not discuss any thing about fee award in court but the home office presenting office just told judge that home office will not give any fee award whereas idon't demanded one. the judge took my original bank statement, payslip and letter from employer and said that he will send his decision within two weeks.


----------



## nyclon (Apr 3, 2011)

Have you asked your barrister what he thinks? That is what you are paying him for.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

nyclon said:


> Have you asked your barrister what he thinks? That is what you are paying him for.


He says to me not 100% but i will likely win appeal. What do you think?


----------



## chiefteaofficer (May 27, 2014)

If your barrister thinks you will win then I would trust him (as he was there, knows your case in detail, and is a professional) more than anyone's opinion on this thread. We have no idea...


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

chiefteaofficer said:


> If your barrister thinks you will win then I would trust him (as he was there, knows your case in detail, and is a professional) more than anyone's opinion on this thread. We have no idea...


i also think so.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

I just want to know how long it will take to get decision from judge?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Up to a year.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Up to a year.


But the hearing has been done. How long it will after appeal hearing?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I see. Can be a few weeks.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Appeal allowed under immigration rules..... Now how much I have to wait for call letter.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Can be 4-8 weeks.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Can be 4-8 weeks.


How will embassy in india contact me?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Email, letter, phone call?


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Email, letter, phone call?


Not specific one?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Email usually.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Joppa said:


> Email usually.


Thanks for your all help Joppa and other friends.


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Dear Joppa

Appeal is still with Special Appeal Team (SAT). How long it will take for them to decide whether to challenge or not?


----------



## maniani (Nov 27, 2014)

Dear Joppa

Appeal is still with Special Appeal Team (SAT). How long it will take for them to decide whether to challenge or not?


----------

