VT (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On a second appeal, permission should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason to hear it. A challenge to a points-based immigration decision cannot succeed where the tribunal rejected the underlying factual case and the applicant does not address that finding. An Article 8 claim not raised before the First-tier Tribunal may not ordinarily be fully canvassed on further appeal. The Upper Tribunal is not required to conduct a full Article 8 merits assessment in those circumstances.

The applicant, an Indian national, applied for leave to remain as a Tier 1 entrepreneur. The Secretary of State refused the application because the evidence did not establish the required maintenance funds in the applicant’s own name. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the applicant, his wife and daughter, finding that the relevant account was not shown to be under the applicant’s control. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the further appeal and declined to entertain an Article 8 claim raised for the first time at that stage.

The applicant renewed his application for permission to bring a second appeal and sought an extension of time. The central issues were whether the bank-account requirement had been properly approached and whether the Article 8 claim required full consideration despite not having been raised before the First-tier Tribunal.

1. Application dismissed. The proposed appeal could not satisfy the second-appeal test: it raised no important point of principle or practice and disclosed no other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene.
2. The Upper Tribunal had been entitled to uphold the decision on the maintenance-funds issue. The First-tier Tribunal had rejected, on the facts, the applicant’s assertion that an account held in his wife’s name was under his control. The applicant did not grapple with that adverse factual finding. The Upper Tribunal’s additional reasoning, that the relevant statements had to show the applicant’s name and that a joint entrepreneur application was treated differently, disclosed no error of law.
3. The applicant had not advanced an Article 8 claim before the First-tier Tribunal. That failure was fatal to an attempt to have the claim fully canvassed before the Upper Tribunal or the Court of Appeal. The Upper Tribunal was not obliged to do more than recognise that procedural failure; it could have dismissed the Article 8 claim on that basis alone.
4. There was no legitimate expectation of the grant of a visa. The application for an extension of time was also dismissed, and the application for permission to appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2016] EWCA Civ 421: renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal dismissed.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) — determination promulgated 24 November 2014: dismissed the further appeals and declined to entertain the Article 8 claim raised for the first time before it.
• First-tier Tribunal — dismissed the appeals against the Secretary of State’s refusal of leave to remain and removal directions.