AB (Bangladesh) and Another v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Macur |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 1738 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 19 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | C5/2013/1834 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 1738
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,London WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Macur
C5/2013/1834
Mr Z Malik (instructed by METRO SOLICITORS) appeared on behalf of the Appellants
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
IDENTIFICATION RESTRICTION
(Approved by the court)
Tuesday 19 November 2013.
This is a renewed application in relation to a second appeal. In those circumstances I remind myself I should not give permission unless I consider that the appeal will raise an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to be seized of the case. There is also an application in relation to an extension of time.
I would grant the application for an extension of time if I had been satisfied that this particular case met the requirements to obtain permission in relation to a second appeal.
This particular case concerns two appellants. The first arrived in the United Kingdom on 3 April 2003 with valid entry clearance as a student.
The second appellant appears to have arrived on 8 March 2003 with entry clearance as a student, but subsequently made his application for leave to remain as a dependent of the first appellant. They were granted successive periods of leave until the last extension as a tier 1 post study work migrant. Further leave was refused on 7 March 2012.
In this case the appellants' first reference to a judge of the first tier tribunal was successful. A second appeal before the upper tribunal reversed the decision based on insufficient funding. During the course of the second appeal argument was made that if these appellants, as they were before the first tier tribunal and referred to as such in the upper tribunal, had been given the opportunity to address the issue of funds, additional bank statements could have been provided either from the appellant herself or from her parents. Alternatively "she could have resubmitted the bank statements but only up to a date ending on 19 February 2012" which would have provided evidence that she had sufficient funds to meet the funding requirements at the relevant date.
The "appellants" made an application for a reconsideration by the upper tribunal, failing which an appeal to this court.
The judge of the upper tribunal, Judge Kopieczek on 18 June 2012 refused...
To continue reading
Request your trial