The Appellant applied for leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.
In order to succeed as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) , the Appellant had to score 75 points for Attributes under paragraphs 35 to 53 of Appendix A.
In order to reach the required number of points, the Appellant had to provide evidence that he had access to no less than £200.000. The evidence of funds must:
- be an original document, copy is not permitted
- be on the institution’s headed paper,
- have been issued by an authorised official,
- have been produced no later than within the 31 days immediately before the date of application,
- confirm that the institution is regulated by the appropriate body,
- state the applicant’s name, and his team partner’s name where relevant,
- show the account number,
- state the date of the document,
- confirm the minimum balance available from the applicant’s own funds (if applicable) that has been held in that institution during a consecutive 90-day period of time, ending on the date of the letter,
- for money being held by a third party at the time of the application and not in the possession of the applicant, confirm that the third party has informed the institution of the amount of money that the third party intends to make available and that the institution is not aware of the third party having promised to make that money available to any other person,
- confirm the name of each third party and their contact details, including their full address including postal code, telephone contact number and any email address; and
- confirm that if the money is not in an institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the money can be transferred into the UK
The Appellant’s brother made the funds available to him; unfortunately his bank refused to provide a letter which contains all the required details. In particular ‘…The bank letter you supplied for the account under Mr Babar’s name fails to state your name … or confirm the availability of funds to yourself…’
The Appellant alledged that SSHD demanded impossible, and that SSHD had residual discretion to accept a different document in support of PBS application.
The Appeal has been rejected on both grounds.
This case evidences that applicant for any PBS visa or leave to remain, must fully comply with evidentiary requirements, or face imminent refusal.
The judgment is available here