Khanam & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer

For entry-clearance applications governed by section 19 of the Immigration Act, the relevant question is whether, at the date of decision, the applicants would be adequately maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds if entry clearance were granted. Adverse findings by specialist immigration tribunals concerning a sponsor’s income and employment prospects may provide no basis for a further appeal. Unsupported savings which would not provide sustained maintenance do not satisfy the requirement. A general Article 8 contention, without a realistic prospect of affecting the result, does not justify permission to appeal.

The Entry Clearance Officer refused applications by a Bangladeshi mother and her two adult children for entry clearance to settle with the sponsor. An adjudicator dismissed their appeals, and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal upheld that outcome. The appellants sought permission to appeal, relying principally on maintenance, alleged employment, savings and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue was whether the evidence disclosed any arguable basis for a further appeal.

Lord Justice Henry delivered the judgment, and Lord Justice Judge agreed. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

1. Statutory condition. Under section 19 of the Immigration Act, the appellants could succeed only by showing that, at the date of the June 1999 decision, they would have been adequately maintained and accommodated without recourse to public funds if entry clearance had been granted.
2. Maintenance evidence. The sponsor was living on benefits. The adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had made adverse findings about his alleged employment. One role was unpaid pro bono work, while the other was found to have been contrived for the applications. Two later job offers were neither foreseeable at the decision date nor credible. There were no grounds for a further appeal on those factual findings.
3. Savings. The evidential weaknesses concerning the alleged £9,000 savings had not been remedied. Even assuming the savings existed and belonged to the first appellant, the Tribunal considered that they would produce only about £8 per week if preserved as capital. If spent on daily maintenance, they would soon be exhausted. There was no evidence that other income would begin. The savings therefore did not establish compliance with the maintenance requirement.
4. Article 8 and other material. The single Lord Justice had noted authority recognising the entitlement of Council of Europe states to maintain firm and fair immigration policies. The Court found nothing in the material before it justifying permission. Letters said to have been written by the sponsor’s former wife were irrelevant because the Tribunal had not relied on them.

Order: application for permission to appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the application for permission to appeal. [2001] EWCA Civ 1857.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeals against the adjudicator’s determination and the refusal of entry clearance.
3. Adjudicator: dismissed the appeals against the Entry Clearance Officer’s decision.