David Reader recently represented an appellant (‘Mrs A’) with joint Hong Kong / Canadian citizenship in an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber). The decision under appeal was the Secretary of State’s refusal of Mrs A’s application for further Leave to Remain (“LTR”) under Appendix FM (Family Members) to the Immigration Rules, on the basis of her family life with her husband (a British Citizen).
The Secretary of State refused Mrs A’s application on the basis that she had not provided sufficient ‘specified evidence’ to demonstrate that she met the Financial Eligibility Requirement of the Rules in accordance with the exacting provisions of Appendix FM-SE (Family Members – Specified Evidence). Mrs A’s application relied upon a combination of both income and cash savings.
David met with Mrs A and her husband via video conference and then drafted a skeleton argument setting out the correct calculations to be applied in Mrs A’s case. He argued that the Secretary of State had erred in failing to apply (or failing to correctly apply) the provisions of Appendix FM and requirements of Appendix FM-SE (including the general provision relating to proximity of evidence to the date of application). In the alternative, he argued that Mrs A met the requirements of the Rules now, and that it would be disproportionate to require her to leave the UK and reapply. In addition, David drafted a detailed schedule of the financial documentation that had been provided with the application (with references to the Secretary of State’s own appeal bundle).
Upon considering David’s skeleton argument and schedule (in advance of the listed hearing of the matter), the Secretary of State withdrew the decision under appeal, with a view to granting Mrs A the leave she had applied for.
David was instructed by Natalie Stokes of Fitzgrahams Solicitors
