Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) applications and false representation

Posted by Business on Oct 19, 2011 in Business | 0 comments

This case concerned 3 appellants (Pakistani nationals) whose applications for Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Leave to Stay in the UK had been refused by the Secretary of State for the Property Department (SSHD).1 of the appellants had a wife and daughter whose applications for leave to remain in the UK were dependent on his obtaining leave to stay on a post-study work visa.

In support of their applications, the appellants submitted what seemed to be postgraduate diplomas from Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College (EHWLC).  The SSHD had refused each and every application under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules, on the basis that the qualifications claimed were false.  This meant that the appellants had failed to show they had been entitled to the requisite number of points under the Points Based Program to entitle them to Tier 1 status. 

The appellants provided witness statements and what seemed to be coursework to corroborate the certificates they produced in support of their applications for leave to stay in the UK.  Nevertheless, these were all identified to be false documents.  The certificates the appellants had produced had been equally false, as witnesses from the college affirmed.  Furthermore, the college had an extensive and trustworthy program which recorded every student at the college.  The appellants had been not on this program.     

The Court cited AA (Nigeria) [2009] EWCA Civ 773, in which the Court of Appeal held that dishonesty or deception, even although not necessarily deception by the applicant herself/himself is required to locate a ‘false representation’ as a ground for mandatory refusal of leave to stay.  The burden of proof was on the appellants to show they had attended the college (under paragraph 245ZX of the immigration rules).  The normal of proof was a balance of probabilities. 

In light of the evidence heard on the false certificates and assignments produced by the appellants, and the truth that the college had no trace of their attendance, the Court found that the SSHD’s refusal under paragraph 322(1A) of the Immigration Rules was ‘sound and manifestly in accordance with the law’.

There had been no Article 8 (correct to family members life) European Convention of Human Rights concerns, except in the case of the appellant whose wife and daughter were with him in the UK.  The Court identified that there was no breach of Article 8 due to the fact the loved ones could return to Pakistan with no any interference to their family members life.  Applying ZH (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4, it would be in the child’s best interests to stay with her parents simply because of her young age.  There was no evidence that the household would be unable to re-establish themselves in Pakistan.  The decision to refuse leave to remain to the appellants was proportionate with regard to household life in each and every case.

For further data or for a case particular evaluation, please get in touch with us on 0207 569 3035 or alternatively at information@ergensharif.co.uk .

Community College in West London