Mehmooda Begum v The Entry Clearance Officer - Abu Dhabi

A document is not a false document merely because it contains an inaccurate statement. Under paragraph 320(7A) of the Immigration Rules, however, a genuine document may found a mandatory refusal where it contains a representation which its maker and a relevant person know to be untrue and which is dishonestly submitted in support of an application. The false representation need not be material to the application and need not be within the applicant’s knowledge.

An error in characterising such a document as false does not require the decision to be set aside if the tribunal’s findings independently establish a false representation within paragraph 320(7A).

The appellant, a Pakistani national, sought entry clearance to visit her son and daughter-in-law in the United Kingdom. Her application included an accommodation report stating that its author had inspected the sponsor’s home.

The First-tier Tribunal found that the visitor requirements were met, but upheld refusal under paragraph 320(7A) of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395, because the letter was a false document or contained a false representation. The sponsor accepted that he knew the author had not inspected the property.

The appellant appealed, relying on A v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 773. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal’s erroneous characterisation of the letter as a false document affected the mandatory refusal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal erred in treating the accommodation letter itself as a false document. On the account of A v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 773 adopted by the Upper Tribunal, a document is false only if it has been fraudulently altered or is a forgery. The letter was genuine and its description of the accommodation was not challenged.

2. The error was not material. The letter asserted that its author had inspected the property, although he had not. That assertion was untrue. It was also material in fact, because it was the assertion that gave the letter value as evidence that the accommodation was adequate.

3. The author knew that the assertion was untrue. The sponsor likewise knew it and submitted the letter to support the application. The Tribunal rejected as implausible the suggestion that the sponsor had read the remainder of the letter without noticing its opening assertion.

4. Accordingly, although the document was not itself false, it contained a dishonest false statement and its submission amounted to a false representation in connection with the application. This engaged paragraph 320(7A) of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395. The rule required refusal, irrespective of whether the appellant herself knew of the falsity. The First-tier Tribunal’s factual findings therefore sustained its ultimate decision.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appellant’s appeal, holding that the First-tier Tribunal’s error as to a false document was immaterial because the findings established a false representation under paragraph 320(7A).
• First-tier Tribunal: found that the substantive visitor requirements were met, but upheld refusal under paragraph 320(7A) of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395, on the basis of the accommodation letter.