The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mohamed Adel Mohamed Mohamed Shebl

For the purposes of paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules, a requirement to provide contracts showing trading does not require every contract to be embodied in one document. The requirement is met where a proper documentary paper trail, read together, evidences genuine contracts and contains the prescribed information. The documents must enable the Secretary of State to verify the trading and, if desired, check the position with the other contracting parties.

The Secretary of State refused the claimant leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. Although she accepted his available investment funds and job title, she considered that purchase orders did not establish contracts or the services he provided as a Sales and Marketing Director.

First-tier Tribunal Judge Holder allowed the claimant’s appeal. The judge held that the company documents, purchase orders, pro-forma invoices and sales invoices, taken together, demonstrated both the claimant’s business activity and contracts satisfying paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules.

The Secretary of State appealed. The central issue was whether paragraph 41-SD required a contract to appear in a single document.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in allowing the claimant’s appeal.

2. Paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules required documentary evidence of genuine contracts showing trading. Its purpose was to establish that the entrepreneur was genuinely trading and to provide sufficient information for the Secretary of State to verify the position with the other parties if she chose.

3. The Rules did not require each contract to be contained in a single document. A contract is not ordinarily itself a document. There was a material distinction between requiring a proper documentary paper trail evidencing a contract and requiring a single document containing the contract.

4. The First-tier Tribunal was entitled to read the purchase orders, pro-forma invoices and sales invoices together. They included the information required by paragraph 41-SD and evidenced contracts between the claimant’s company and its purchasers. No other challenge to the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was advanced.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal and upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s allowance of the claimant’s appeal.
• First-tier Tribunal: Allowed the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.