Trishita Farjana Goffar Mumu v Entry Clearance Officer - Dhaka

Paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules applies where false representations or documents are submitted dishonestly, even if the applicant did not know of the dishonesty. The dishonesty may be that of another person acting in connection with the application.

In assessing proportionality under Article 8, the public interest in refusing a dishonest application is not automatically reduced because a future spouse application may fall within the exception in paragraph 320(7C), or because a future application might instead be considered under paragraph 320(11). Chikwamba [2008] UKHL 40 does not govern that situation. The proportionality assessment remains fact-sensitive.

The appellant, a Bangladeshi national, applied for entry clearance as the spouse of a person settled in the United Kingdom. The Entry Clearance Officer refused the application because a false education certificate and an altered date of birth had been submitted. The false age would have made the appellant appear old enough to meet the then age requirement in paragraph 277 of the Immigration Rules.

The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside because the age issue had been resolved against the respondent following Quila and Bibi [2011] UKSC 45. It remade the decision. The central issues were whether paragraph 320(7A) applied despite any lack of the appellant's personal knowledge, and whether refusal was disproportionate under Article 8 of the ECHR.

1. Appeal dismissed. The respondent proved on the balance of probabilities that the current application involved an attempt to deceive. The online verification evidence, the previous visitor application, and the false educational certificate showed that the appellant's date of birth had been falsely stated to avoid the then age requirement.
2. Paragraph 320(7A) was engaged. It requires dishonesty in the presentation of false material, but it does not require that dishonesty to be the applicant's own. Following AA (Nigeria) [2010] EWCA Civ 773, dishonesty by a person acting in connection with the application suffices.
3. The later invalidation and amendment of the age requirement in paragraph 277 did not retrospectively remove the dishonesty used in this application. The appellant could meet the spouse requirements apart from the mandatory refusal ground.
4. Chikwamba [2008] UKHL 40 did not make refusal disproportionate. A possible future exception under paragraph 320(7C) cannot generally undermine the effectiveness of paragraph 320(7A). Nor could a speculative future refusal under paragraph 320(11) reduce the weight of the respondent's Article 8(2) interests. Whether paragraph 320(11) applies will depend on the applicant's own significant contrivance, the guidance then in force, and the evidence then available.
5. The Article 8 assessment remained fact-specific. Even if family life could not reasonably continue abroad, refusal of this application was proportionate because it was marred by dishonesty. The appeal was dismissed under the Immigration Rules and on human-rights grounds.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): The First-tier Tribunal's determination was set aside for material error of law. The Upper Tribunal remade the decision and dismissed the appeal.
• First-tier Tribunal: The appeal was dismissed on 14 December 2010. The judge found that the appellant did not meet paragraph 277 and that a false document attracted refusal under paragraph 320(7A).