Rp (Proof of Forgery)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | C M G OCKELTON,DEPUTY PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] UKAIT 86 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
| Date | 02 November 2006 |
[2006] UKAIT 86
ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Mr C M G Ockelton, Deputy President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Senior Immigration Judge Gill
For the Appellant: Mr Tony Okperin, Sponsor
For the Respondent: Mr J Gulvin, Home Office Presenting Officer
RP (proof of forgery) Nigeria
An allegation of forgery needs to be proved by evidence and by the person making it. The procedure under s108 of the 2002 Act remains available to respondents. A bare allegation of forgery, or an assertion by an Entry Clearance Officer that he believed the document to be forged can in these circumstances carry no weight. The Tribunal treats a document as forged only on the basis of clear evidence before it. KS (Allegations by respondent: proof required?)Pakistan [2005] UKAIT 00171should not be read as implying the contrary.
This is the reconsideration, at the instance of the appellant, of her appeal against the decision of the respondent on 22 March 2005 refusing her entry clearance as a family visitor to the United Kingdom.
The appellant's application was made on 9 March 2005. It was supported by a considerable number of documents relating to the appellant's employment as a Shell contractor since 199The appellant's son applied jointly with her. His application was supported by documents relating to his educational status. The appellant indicated in her application that she had been to the United Kingdom before and had left, apparently with no problems. She referred also to another visa that had been issued to her, but which she had not used because of illness. She supported that assertion by a doctor's report. Amongst the employment documents supporting the application are copy remittance advices from the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. One is dated 8 January 2004; six others bear dates in December and January 2005. The total amount payable on those six is about 4,000,000 Naira.
The appellant was not interviewed. She therefore had no opportunity to deal with any concerns arising from her application. At some stage her application form was marked:
“ Suspect forged documents — remittance advice from Shell has a run date of 6.1.05 but the stamp is 24/1/04. Not satisfied rest of docs genuine”
The reasons for the refusal are in the following terms:
“ The introduction of the courier assisted visa application process has led me to consider your application solely on the documents provided and the information recorded by you on your visa application form. I acknowledge the importance of family visits in maintaining family ties, therefore I have given your application careful consideration. In support of your application, you have submitted remittance advice [sic] from Shell Petrolium [sic]. Following examination by a member of the Visa Forgery and Intelligence Team I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the document in question is a forgery. The production of such documents undermines the credibility of the application and causes me to doubt your true motivation for this visit. In the light of this I am not satisfied you are genuinely seeking entry to the UK as a visitor for a period not exceeding six months as required by Rule 41(i) of HC 395 and that you intend to leave the UK at the end of the period of the visit as stated by you as required by Rule 41(ii) of HC 395.
In making my decision I have also taken account of the Human Rights Act. Whilst I accept that this decision constitutes limited interference with Article 8, I remind myself that this is a qualified right and I am satisfied that the decision is justified and proportionate in the interests of maintaining an effective immigration control. I am also aware of the fact that there is nothing in English law that prohibits the sponsor from travelling to Nigeria and enjoying family life with you in this country.”
The appellant's appeal against that decision asserts that the respondent who concluded that “my SPDC registration certificate is forged” and that “I am leaving the country to UK for the purpose of settlement”. In her grounds she asserts that she is a “renowned contractor to SPDC”, and was registered as such on 24 April 1992 and that her status earning her living as a contractor can be readily checked. She points out that her “several trips to and from London” ought to be sufficient to show that she has no intention of settling, and asserts that in any event her son's studies at Delta State University prevent the two of them from remaining in the United Kingdom.
In the course of preparing the respondent's bundle for the appeal, the respondent added to it a letter, apparently in standard form, signed by the Entry Clearance Manager, and reading as follows:
“ I have reviewed the ECO's decision following receipt of a family visit appeal and carefully considered the grounds of appeal. I am satisfied that the decision is correct and in accordance with the Immigration Rules.
ECOs in both Abuja and Lagos are able to assess and decide applications for Entry Clearance primarily on the information provided in the information form and the documents submitted in support. ECOs make additional enquiries or reference to local records to assist them in deciding an application. In the majority of cases where an interview is deemed necessary the applicant will be asked to attend in person. In such cases the interview record will be included in the appeal bundle.”
The hearing before the Immigration Judge took place on 7 February 2006. The sponsor appeared for the appellant and the respondent was also represented. The sponsor gave evidence. It is not clear whether there were any submissions made by either party: the determination contains a passage headed “The Case for the Respondent”, but that merely repeats the wording of the Notice of Refusal.
The following section of the determination is headed “My Findings”. We have to say that we do not find it easy to understand. The Immigration Judge begins by saying that “My initial reaction was that if it were not for the finding that the Shell document was a forgery I would have no difficulty in deciding this matter in favour of the appellant”. This is because the sponsor's evidence was credible and “not in any way inconsistent” and the sponsor's evidence relating to the appellant's previous visits to the United Kingdom had not been disputed by the respondent. As the Immigration Judge writes, “this therefore appears to be a strong application, well supported by the ample documentary materials which the appellant has provided”. We must set out the following three paragraphs of the determination in full.
“ 18. The evidence difficulty, of course, comes in the form of the check that has been done on the Shell document provided by the appellant. This document has been found, following examination by a member of the Visa forgery and Intelligence team ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to have been a forgery. I therefore have the very difficult task of setting of this finding against the application which I otherwise regarded as being strong. The finding to the effect that the document was a forgery is a bare statement to that effect. There is no condescension to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Sri Lalithambika Foods Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...interviewee and, she submits, cannot fairly be inferred from the background facts. 79 Ms Patry relies on RP (proof of forgery) Nigeria (2006) UKAIT 00086. That was a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, overturning a finding by a Home Office official that a document had been for......
-
R (on the application of Gazi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ETS - Judicial Review) (IJR)
...civil standard applicable in cases of fraud had not been achieved by the Respondent's evidence: see RP (Proof of Forgery) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00086. He noted the absence of individual evidence relating to the Appellant's test performance. The Tribunal was not satisfied that fraud had been ......
-
M.a. (ap) For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
...for proof; and that proving fabrication of documents calls for evidence at the upper end of the scale [RP (proof of forgery) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 00086 at § 14 - a decision on Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 section 108; OA (alleged forgery; section 108 procedure) Nigeria [2007......
-
R Liral Veget Training and Recruitment Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...and a high degree of proof required. The Claimant relied upon the decision in AA (Nigeria) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 773 and RP (proof of forgery) (Nigeria) (2006) UKAIT 00086 at para 14, both of which are asylum 53 In the present context, there is no issue that what the Guidelines contemplat......