WA (Pakistan) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For a second appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason. Under the maintenance-funds requirement in Appendix C, Rule 245ZXD, the applicant must show the specified sum continuously available for 28 days ending no later than one month before the application. A later letter confirming the account balance on one day cannot establish that earlier continuity without evidence covering the intervening period.

Mr Ahmed applied for further leave to remain as a student. The Secretary of State refused the application because he had not shown that the required funds were continuously available. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal, and the Upper Tribunal found no error of law in that decision.

Mr Ahmed sought permission for a second appeal, arguing that a later bank letter supported an inference that the required funds had remained available. The central issues were the relevant 28-day period and whether the later letter established continuous availability.

Permission to appeal refused. This was a second appeal, so the applicant had to show an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason.

1. Under Appendix C, Rule 245ZXD of the Immigration Rules, the relevant period ended no later than one month before the application. For the application made on 23 August 2013, the correct end date was 23 July 2013, not 19 August.
2. The required £4,900 had to be continuously available for 28 days. The bank statements showed that the necessary sum was not available throughout the relevant period. Later credits did not cure that deficiency.
3. The letter dated 19 August, confirming the account balance on that day, could not prove that the account had remained unchanged or that the required funds had been continuously available during the preceding period. The Upper Tribunal was entitled to reject that inference.
4. No point of law justified permission to appeal, and the claimed evidential issue did not amount to an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason. The Upper Tribunal was therefore right to refuse permission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Longmore refused permission for a second appeal.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington, on 28 August 2014, found no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.
• First-tier Tribunal: Judge Miles dismissed the appeal against refusal of further leave to remain.