Please advice me what list of documents and other evidence I have to produce to the Immigration hearing of my wife appeal against the decision of the entry clearance officer I enclose the appeal sent to ECO.
Application: Bushra Din
Date of Birth 17/11/1981
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. Appellant, Bushra Din, now on known as “Bushra”, appeals against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer (Islamabad), now on known as “ECO”., who in his decision issued on 5th November 2012 refused to grant entry clearance to her with view to settlement as a spouse of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom.
2. Bushra’s husband (sponsor), Mohammad Din, now on known as “Din” is a British Citizen and is in a gainful self employment in the United Kingdom . Din’s ability to maintain and accommodate Bushra is shown by his Accounts by a Chartered Accountant, Rent agreement of the accommodation and Chartered Surveyor’s report to show the suitability of the accommodation for Bushra to live with Din. The bundle of documents submitted to ECO is on 128 pages, consisting of all the documentary evidence to satisfy ECO.
3. ECO says, “ you have lived together for the last four years. You have not provided evidence such as a tenancy agreement, mortgage documents, joint household bills, joint bank statements in addition to appropriate immigration history to confirm this and establish that you have been living together for the period claimed. I am therefore not satisfied that you and your sponsor married or formed a civil partnership at least four years ago and since which time you have both been living together outside the United Kingdom. 281(i)(b)(i).
4. ECO did not give any importance to the letter of Department of Work and Pension dated 27 September 2011 on page 100 of the bundle. Din pointed out the above stated letter in his affirmed sponsorship letter of 5 January 2012 on pages 36-38 and Din’s letter to ECO on 20 June 2012 on page 30-31 of the bundle submitted to ECO.
5. The letter is from the Pension Officer of the Department of Work and Pension of The United Kingdom Ref ZS556972C IPC Claim 043 FR7 dated 27th September 2011, addressed to Din, it says,6. “Dear Mr Din About your claim for increase in your United Kingdom ( UK ) state Pension. I am writing to tell you that you have been awarded an increase in your State Pension in respect of your wife Bushra Din from 9 March 2009 up to and including the 11 July 2011.(123 weeks at £39.32 per week) The arrears have been sent to your Bank. The increase in your UK Pension in respect of your wife cannot be paid from 18 July 2011 because from that date you have been regarded as living in the UK permanently. The increase cannot be paid while your wife and you do not reside together.”
7. The Pension Officer who has the same responsibilities and powers as ECO is satisfied that Bushra is Din’s legally wedded wife who , lived with Din until 11 July 2012, and confirmed that Din is living in UK permanently since 12 July 2012, therefore awarded Din Extra Pension according to the Pension rules that couple have to live together to be able to get extra Pension. The Department of Work and Pension used the services of The International Pension Officer, in Islamabad to investigate Din’s marriages and divorces. Bushra was not awarded more than 123 weeks extra pension because extra Pension rules do not backdate the claim from the date of application which did not made until 2009 due to lack of information. This award is discontinued since 2010 but will last to 2020 who got it therefore Bushra will remain entitled to this award to 2020 whenver she lives with Din in Pakistan or UK can get this extra Pension.
8. The same bundle of documents was presented to the ECO which contains Din’s record of entries and exits to and from United Kingdom for over four years by the stamps of entries and exits from Pakistan in the photo copies of his Pakistan and United Kingdom Passports attested by Rausa Mumford Solicitor on 5.1.2012 in Cardiff/UK at pages 42-54 of the bundle of documents submitted to ECO..
ECO has shown poor knowledge of Pakistani culture and its religious understanding when he says Bushra was not married or even formed a civil partnership with Din. Bushra belongs to an area of Pakistan which is dedicated to Islamic practices where there is no room to live without genuine marriage and give birth to illegitimate children. It is a criminal offense in Pakistan law and carry punishment of imprisonment and lashes. Such couple has also to face the family anger and revenge. Most such couple are shot dead for family honour. Such honour killing has taken place even by British Muslim families living in UK . Any period Din was not in Pakistan, he was visiting his children in UK.It is therefore ECO is wrong to say Bushra did not complied to Immigration rule 281(i)(b)(i).
EOC’s second paragraph says The tradition in Pakistan is for marriages to be arranged by parents within the extended family, between persons of a similar age, with no previous marriages. O have considered all of this when considering your application. You state that your arranged marriage took place on 03/11/2002 and that your sponsor is a divorcee with 4 children and 40 years older than you. Your sponsor fully intend to live with you in a subsisting marriage but it is your intension that must be paramount in deciding this application. I have carefully studied this application however there is little evidence of regular contact and interest in each other’s welfare and well being. Your have failed to provide evidence of this and as such I am not satisfied that you intend to live permanently with your sponsor as spouse or civil partner and that the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting 281(iii).
It is true that the background of Bushra’s marriage to Din was not disclosed to ECO but same was disclosed to the Pension Officer of the United Kingdom Work and Pension. Bushra felt ECO will be satisfied with the Pension Officer’s decision to accept Bushra as Din’s legally wedded wife and granted Din extra Pension for Bushra.
Marriage Background of Bushra and Din
When Din was domiciled to Pakistan after living in UK almost 40 years, he was living in Quetta/Pakistan where he was born and all his family lived there. Din was in search of getting married again that one of Din’s friend from Abbottabad/Pakistan sent him to Abbottabad to see his cousin’s family. When Din came to meet the family, they said that the girl was now engaged. Din met Bushra’s elder sister who was looking for a suitable Partner for Bushra. Bushra’s father refused to Din’s proposal due to Din’s age and Din’s previous marriage. Din advertised in one of National Newspaper for marriage which cost him Rs.5,000, and gave his mobile phone number in the Newspaper. Din t the several telephone calls he received who showed their interest and wanted to see him, he met a Professor of a College in Hassanabdal who accepted Din’s proposal for marriage to his daughter subject to her approval who was a teacher in Tarbella, in a neighbouring townn. The meeting was to take place in couple of hours that Din received a telephone call from Bushra who said that her father was ill informed about him and she was still interested to give his proposal a second chance. Din abounded meeting the teacher and travelled back to Abbottabad, taken a room in Serban Hotel where he met Bushra couple of times after her beautician classes. Din gave Bushra lifts in his car from her home to her beautician classes a few time that both liked each other. Bushra managed to persuade her father who then arranged proper Nikah and wedding ceremony. Din gave Bushra a cheque of Rs.500,000 as dowry / wedding gift which she deposited in her account before the wedding. Bushra’s father sent wedding invitation to over 300 friends and relatives who attended the Nikah and wedding ceremony on 3 November 2002. Bushra was brought in a wedding cage, carried by her relatives to Din’s rented house in the neighbourhood. Shortly after wedding Din sent invitation cards to over 300 guests and relatives who attended the Waleema/dinner party given in the Serban Hotel, Abbottabad . Din Bushra went to Islamabad and Murree on their car where they had their honey moon in a Hotel in Islamabad . Couple have been living together happily ever after in Abbottabad, first in a rented house and then in their own house. Both love each other ever since they are married. Both do believe that love should not be openly expressed in public under strict religious and family traditions. Din and Bushra have been living together in Pakistan until11 July 2011 since married on 3 November 2011 is the result of their love to each other and birth of children has made that bond irrevocable. Whenever Din is away from Pakistan visiting UK , both are in regular contact on phone and skype/yahoo with each other. Din has been sending and spending his savings and income for the use and benefit of Bushra and his children in Abbottabad.. Bushra intend to live permanently with Din therefore ECO is wrong to assume that the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting 281(iii).
ECO says in his third paragraph of refusal ,
“You claimed to have 4 children with your sponsor, however, you do not wish them to travel with you to the United Kingdom . You have provided little evidence regarding them or that the sponsor is indeed their father. However if this is true, I expect your sponsor to be able to support them. Based on Department of Work and Pensions figures the required amount of money needed to support a family consisting of a married couple and four children is £1,671.88 per month. Your sponsor has 4 children in the UK from another relationship, however, as they are over 18 , it appears that your sponsor has no financial link to them . This figure does not include accommodation costs. Your sponsor’s living costs are currently £600 per month. When considering the funds required for maintaining and accommodating you, your sponsor and additional family members it is apparent that your sponsor’s income is not sufficient to meet this cost. I am therefore not satisfied that you will be adequately maintained and accommodated in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds. (281 (iv) (v).”
ECO has ignored Din,s verified monthly income of 1833.33 per month and his Pension at £4,305 per annum ( £358.75 per month ) is £2,192.08, which leaves £521.08 in exesas to £1,671.88 per month required for Couple with four children. Din is paying £200 per month rent for the flat inclusive of all bills per month. (page no.65, 82-92) in the bundle of documents. This figure is in excess to the calculation made by the ECO. A Welshman whose wife is not allowed from Mexico , says cost of living in Wales are less than the figures used by ECO.
Bushra and Din have no immediate plans for their children to join them as they are in a School which gives them religious education which they may miss if they come to UK early.
Din’s children are self supporting in Pakistan where they have income of two houses which were bought for them on the name of their step brothers in UK .
Din’s sons in UK have given their General Power of Attorneys to Din who has let out the houses for rents to be used for his Children in Abbottabad who will be well looked after by their grand parents and their other relatives therefore ECO wrongly concluded that Bushra will not be adequately maintained and accommodated in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds. (281 (iv) (v).
Din has been self employed in UK since 1967 and never was unemployment or received housing benefit.
Din gave one house worth over 300,000 to his children in UK with the consent of his first wife. Din has served the Muslim Community in Cardiff voluntarily for many years. Din donated his voluntary services and use of
his 15,000 sq ft warehouse he used to own off City Road Cardiff to organise the Bosnian Muslim Relief for couple of years. ECO’s comment to his first wife and children are again due lack of his knowlege Pakistan’s culture and Din’s family background which is given in Din’s Sponsorship letter that he married his first wife in Quetta/Pakistan in 1960 who is his first cousin who joined him in 1965 in UK. Din’s 4 grown up and married children, 13 grand children, two brothers and a sister with their 13 children and 10 grand children live in Cardiff UK. Din wants to consolidate his family in UK . Bushra’s sistewr Mrs Salma Khan is married to one of Din’s close fried’s son who are well to do family in Cardiff . Salma and Bushra love each other and the couple lived with Bushra in her son’s house in Lahore . Bushra will live close to her sister Salma Khan in Cardiff .
The decision is unlawfulunder section 6 of the Human Right Act 1998(c,42)(Public authority not to act contrary to Human Rights Convention) as being incompatible with the appellant’s convention rights. The ECO appears for all intent and purposes to have based his decision on a non reading of evidence submitted by the appellant at least reading of papers that bear the relevance to those submitted by the appellant. Alternatively, the ECO has misinterpreted the evidence submitted by the appellant in support of her application. The ECO has misdirected himself as to the burden of proof principle to the determent of appellant.This goes against the grain of the claim of the ECO that all documents in support of appellant’s application have been considered. IOt follows, therefore therefore , that the ECO has erred on reaching a conclusion on the appellant’s intentions and decision to refuse entry clearance is flawed. The appellant provided with her application numerous wedding photographs,progressive photographs of her children with spouse and many of her close relations. There was no need for appellant to show telephone card, messages and other means to show their regular contact when they were in fact living together all the time since marriage until 11 July 2011. While considering the documents and facts while making the decision and failed to analyse properly to reach to correct conclusion that the appellant and sponsor are in close contact, they are legally married, have legitimate children, and sponsor has shown the adequate income and accommodation to support his wife when she come to UK with or without her children.
Therefore it is submitted that the ECO is not in accordance with the law and the Immigration rules and goes against the United Kingdom ’s obligation under the European Human Rights especially those pertaining to enjoyment of family life
Submitted: 4 years ago.
Category: Immigration Law