SI (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 737 (16 June 2015)

SI (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 737 (16 June 2015)

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he had access to at least £50,000 at the date of application, as required by the Immigration Rules. The Upper Tribunal's conclusion was rational and based on the evidence provided, and there was no procedural unfairness.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 737
Parties
Applicant/claimant: SI (Bangladesh); Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Renewed application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Tier 1 (entrepreneur) Migrant, Leave to Remain, Access to Funds Requirement, Evidentiary Requirements
Immigration Law Tier 1 (entrepreneur) Migrant Leave to Remain Access to Funds Requirement Evidentiary Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SI (Bangladesh)

Applicant/claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirement of having access to at least £50,000 at the date of application under the Immigration Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding available funds
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he had access to at least £50,000 at the date of application, as required by the Immigration Rules. The Upper Tribunal's conclusion was rational and based on the evidence provided, and there was no procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Renewed application for permission to appeal refused