The case of CS (Tier 1 home regulator) United States of America [2010] UKUT 163 (IAC) is far more important than its title suggests. The President, Mr Justice Blake, confirms at paragraph 7 that the consent of the Upper Tribunal is required if the Respondent attempts to withdraw a decision in order to ‘kill’ an appeal:

"At the outset Mr Laverty Senior Home Office Presenting Officer sought to withdraw the decision in order for the respondent to re-determine it, as he submitted that the Guidance had not been properly applied by the IJ and the interpretation reached was contrary to the terms of the Guidance. He recognised that under Rule 17(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008 No. 2698, he required the consent of the Upper Tribunal to do so. We indicated that we did not give that consent and would determine the appeal ourselves."

There have been some disgraceful, ignominious examples in the past of UKBA withdrawing decisions in order to avoid losing a case, mainly in the context of Country Guidance cases.

Sadly this rule exists in the Upper Tribunal only and UKBA can continue to withdraw decisions in the First Tier Tribunal under the old AIT rules that continue to exist.

The case is also very helpful in setting out the proper approach to bank statements and maintenance requirements in the Points Based System. Firstly, where statements from a bank are relied on that meet the normal formalities, it matters not whether the bank is domestic or foreign. Paragraph 96(i) of the Post Study Work guidance applies. Secondly, the earlier case of MM (Tier 1 PSW; Art 8; “private life”) Zimbabwe [2009] UKAIT 00037 was wrong in suggesting that where the applicant relies on funds held in a ‘financial institution’ (under paragraph 96(iv)) what is needed is a letter from that institution, not the FSA or the home regulator.