Rohan Rana v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For the maintenance requirement in Immigration Rules, Appendix C, the availability of funds is assessed retrospectively over the specified period before the application. An agreed overdraft facility may demonstrate that funds were available where the required sum could have been withdrawn throughout that period without exceeding the facility. The Rules do not require the funds to remain available when the application is decided or at a later stage.

The appellant, an Indian student, applied in time for further leave to remain. The Secretary of State refused the application, partly on the ground that he had not shown the required £1,200 maintenance funds for the 28 days before applying.

An Immigration Judge allowed the appeal. The evidence showed that the appellant's uncle was a joint financial sponsor and had an agreed, property-secured overdraft facility. The balance available within that facility exceeded the required maintenance sum throughout the relevant 28-day period.

The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal. The central issue was whether an agreed overdraft facility could establish the availability of maintenance funds under Appendix C.

1. The Secretary of State's appeal was dismissed. The Immigration Judge had been entitled to find that the maintenance requirement was met.

2. Appendix C requires proof that the relevant maintenance sum was available during the prescribed period before an application. The inquiry is retrospective. It does not require the migrant to show that the same money remains available when the application is decided, on arrival in the United Kingdom, or at another later time.

3. An agreed overdraft may satisfy that requirement. Where the sponsor could have withdrawn the required sum throughout the 28-day period without exceeding the agreed overdraft limit, the funds were available in the required sense. There was no principle or rule excluding reliance on such a facility.

4. On the evidence, the sponsor had a £130,000 overdraft facility secured against freehold property. The account had sufficient unused facility during the relevant period to cover £1,200. The evidence also supported the conclusion that adequate maintenance had been and would continue to be available. The contrary approach in PO (points based scheme: maintenance: loans) Nigeria [2009] UKAIT 47 had been based on Policy Guidance before Pankina and was not followed.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The Secretary of State's appeal against the Immigration Judge's determination was dismissed.
• Immigration Judge: Allowed the appellant's appeal against refusal of further leave to remain.