PBS Guidance on Maintenance Funds Unlawful

AP (Russia) V SSHD (2009)

The Panel of Senior Immigration Judges in AP (Russia) ruled that the Points-Based System Guidance requirement that funds must be availabe for 3 months prior to the  date of application is unlawful. The decision is a direct relevance to all Appendix C decisions and appeals ( and not just Post Study Work cases).

Having regard to the above, it has been noted that the Panel decision in AP(Russsia) has not been reported  despite:

a) AP(Russia) expressly not following NA & Others (Tier 1 Post- Study Work)funds) (2009) UKAIT 00025 on the abovementioned matter,

b) AP( Russia) was promulgated over six months ago - on 9/10/2009

c) NA & Others ( Tier 1 Post-Study Work-funds) a decision that is more favourable to the Home Office than to the appellants being reported approximately 5 days  after promulgation,

d) AP(Russia) being a decision  that Immigration Judges are bound to follow in line with the Tribunal's normal practice.

Undoubtedly, there are many applicants who are not able to appeal their Appendix C refusal or, alternatively, appellants not challenging unfavourable rulings by Immigration Judges on Appendix C issues.

Presumably, the Home Office has not been following AP(Russia), not drawing AP(Russia) to the attention of Immigration Judges and relying on NA & Others (Tier 1 Post -Study Work funds)

If you have been refused extension of Visa by the Home Office or lost a case in court because of Appendix C- Maintenance  Funds under any category, please call us now on 01189 31 4006 or Email: info@mugolegal.co.uk

Court of Appeal case on Marriage

R (DQ) Chile v SSHD  CA Civil Divison C4/2010/0150

On 6/5/2010,  permission was given to DQ by Rt. Hon Lord Justice Stanley Burton to appeal the order of Burnet J of 31/12/2009 to the Court of Appeal in this case, which seeks to challenge the raising of an age for leave to be granted on the basis of marriage/partnership from 18 to 21.

The case is to be joined to spouses and partners to come to the UK.

This case will be heard with the substantive application for Judicial Review pending in the Court of Appeal in SB 2009/1750/QBACEF

                                     WATCH THIS SPACE