Jahangara Begum v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Where a family’s income falls below the objective maintenance benchmark, the shortfall may be met from sufficient savings. The appropriate reference period for assessing those savings is ordinarily the period of initial leave, rather than an arbitrary sum or an indefinite future period.

The maintenance requirement nevertheless looks forward. Applicants must show on the balance of probabilities that they will be maintained adequately without recourse to public funds. If they can meet that requirement for initial leave and there is no present reason to think that they will fail to meet it in the longer term, they are entitled to entry clearance.

The appellants, a Bangladeshi wife and her children, applied to join the sponsor in the United Kingdom under paragraphs 281 and 301 of HC 395. Their applications were refused because the sponsor’s weekly income was below the level required for adequate maintenance.

Immigration Judge Baker dismissed their appeals. Although the sponsor had savings of about £20,000, the judge was not satisfied that those savings and prospective earnings established adequate maintenance. He also held that article 8 was not engaged.

On appeal, the parties agreed that the income shortfall was £125.16 per week and that the savings would meet it for 159 weeks, exceeding the maximum initial leave period. The central issues were whether savings could cure the income shortfall and whether refusal was proportionate under article 8.

1. Appeals allowed. Immigration Judge Baker’s decision contained material errors of law. It was set aside and remade so that the appeals succeeded under the Immigration Rules and article 8.

2. Under paragraph 281 of HC 395, adequacy of maintenance is an objective question. Applying KA and Others (Adequacy of Maintenance) Pakistan [2006] UKAIT 00065, the relevant income-support level supplies the benchmark. Savings are a relevant source of maintenance and may make good an income shortfall.

3. The proper reference point for the amount of savings is the two-year period of initial leave. The Immigration Judge gave no adequate reason for concluding that £20,000 could not meet the agreed shortfall, particularly as it also left a substantial reserve. The family therefore met the maintenance requirement for that period.

4. The Rules look to the future, so initial sufficiency does not make the longer-term position irrelevant. Paragraph 284(viii) requires adequate maintenance again when indefinite leave is sought. But where initial adequacy is established and there is no present reason to expect later failure, uncertain future circumstances do not justify refusing entry clearance.

5. Article 8 was plainly engaged because this was a subsisting family unit. Refusal interfered with its family life. Since the family could maintain itself without public funds during initial leave and would later have to satisfy the Rules again, continued exclusion was disproportionate.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Allowed the appellants’ appeal against Immigration Judge Baker, set aside the dismissal, and remade the decision by allowing the appeals under the Immigration Rules and article 8.
• First-tier Tribunal: Immigration Judge Baker dismissed the appeals against refusal of entry clearance on maintenance grounds and found that article 8 was not engaged.