Get RSS feed
Immigration cases
Secretary of State for the Home Department v SK (Sri Lanka) [2012] EWCA Civ 16 (19 January 2012) Thu January 19
TM, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 9 (18 January 2012) Wed January 18
Naved (Student - fairness - notice of points) Pakistan [2012] UKUT 14 (IAC) (13 January 2012) Fri January 13
UKBA news
New application form and guidance for Bulgarian and Romanian applications Mon January 16
The UK Border Agency has published a new version of Form BR3, which is used to apply for an accessio
Update for Tier 4 sponsors: educational oversight and other changes Tue January 10
An update for Tier 4 sponsors about educational oversight and information about changes coming into
Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) - new procedure for Arts Council England endorsement Tue January 3
From today, applicants under Tier 1 (Exceptional talent) of the points-based system must follow a ne
Taiwan is added to the Tier 5 youth mobility scheme Thu December 22
From 1 January 2012, Taiwan will join the list of countries and territories that participate in the
London 2012 Games spectators: visa applications open from 1 January 2012 Tue December 20
From 1 January 2012 you can apply for visitor visas to come to the UK to watch the Games.
He who asserts must prove
There is a useful reminder from the tribunal that he who asserts must prove in the case of MH (Respondent's bundle: documents not provided) Pakistan [2010] UKUT 168 (IAC).
The ECO asserted that some of the bank statements relied on were false. The appeal was originally decided on the papers, and the judge found that deception had been proved by the ECO’s documentation verification report. On appeal, the tribunal found that there was no such report on file and the Presenting Officer could find no trace of such a report on the UKBA computer system. In short, there was no such report.
The tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that UKBA had failed to put forward the documents on which it relied, as was required by procedure rule 13. All that was before the tribunal was an unsupported assertion by an ECO, which was not capable of establishing that deception had been used.
