Razak v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal should be granted where a proposed ground is at least arguable. An arguable issue arose as to whether a bank statement dated 1 October could evidence funds for the relevant 28-day period. A further arguable issue arose under the Rodriguez doctrine, as amplified by Mandalia v SSHD [2015] UKSC 59, namely whether fairness required the Secretary of State to request a complete statement where the existing documentation appeared puzzling.

The applicant sought permission to appeal after the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) refused judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of his application for further leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant.

The application required evidence that £19,800 had been continuously held for 28 days. The applicant relied on a Lloyds TSB statement dated 1 October 2012, together with funds in an overseas account. The proposed appeal concerned whether the statement sufficiently evidenced the relevant period and whether fairness required the Secretary of State to request a complete statement when the documents appeared incomplete or puzzling.

1. Permission granted. The applicant raised an arguable issue concerning the evidential effect of a bank statement dated 1 October 2012. Although its last recorded entry was 24 September, the applicant argued that the statement could demonstrate that the required funds were available when the relevant 28-day period was calculated back from 1 October.
2. A second arguable issue arose under the Rodriguez doctrine, as amplified by Mandalia v SSHD [2015] UKSC 59. If the Home Office was puzzled by the absence of entries between 24 September and 1 October, fairness arguably required it to ask for a complete statement covering that period. The further documents produced by the applicant appeared to show that no transaction had occurred during the interval.
3. The court therefore granted permission to appeal. The appeal was to be listed for half a day before two Lord Justices, one of whom could be a High Court judge.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal granted from the Upper Tribunal’s refusal of judicial review.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Judicial review refused after an oral hearing.