Rehman v Secretary of State for the Home Department

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Elias
Judgment Date31 January 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] EWCA Civ 461
Docket NumberCase No: C5/2012/2761
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date31 January 2013

[2013] EWCA Civ 461

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)

[APPEAL No: IA/04867/2012]

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Elias

Case No: C5/2012/2761

Between:
Rehman
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented.

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

Lord Justice Elias
1

This is a renewed application for permission to appeal. The applicant has not turned up. He was notified of this hearing. I delayed hearing the matter from 10 o'clock this morning until 1pm in case there were any difficulties that he had faced in seeking to get here with inclement weather or something of that nature. He still is not here and in the circumstances I intend to deal with the application. I am satisfied that it has no merit.

2

Very briefly, the circumstances of the case are as follows. The claimant is a citizen of Pakistan. He sought an extension of his leave as a Tier 4 (General) student migrant. That was refused because he failed to provide a bank statement with a closing balance which demonstrated that he was in possession of £2,600 for a consecutive period of 28 days prior to the making of his application. He provided a bank statement dated 4 November 2011 but the relevant date was 21 December 2011 and therefore that condition was not satisfied. That condition is required by Appendix C of the Immigration Rules itself and not merely the guidance. He submitted that since it was only guidance, it could not be binding so as to defeat his claim. The premise is false and that ground cannot succeed. There was a failure to comply with the statutory provisions.

3

There is a second ground, namely that the applicant had not demonstrated his relationship to his father by way of the production of a birth certificate, but it was conceded before the Upper Tribunal that there is no such requirement in the Immigration Rules and consequently it was not lawful for the Secretary of State to act on that failure; see R (Alvi) v SSHD [2012] UKSC 33. But the other ground is enough.

4

In my judgment there is no basis on which it can be said that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT