(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/16219/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House
On 22 October 2013
On 25 October 2013
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MOULDEN
MR VIGNESH KUMAR PERVMAL
(Anonymity Direction Not Made)
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellant: Mr M Sowerby of counsel instructed by Sahida & Co Legal Services
For the Respondent: Mr G Saunders a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
"Therefore, as you do not meet any of the exemptions, you must provide the original English-language test certificate, which is still valid, from an English language test provider approved by the Secretary of State as specified in Appendix O of the Immigration Rules. However, you failed to do so.
You have submitted 3 TOEIC certificates from the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in support of your application. You have to show the required minimum scores for the reading and listening components on one certificate of the same date as well as the speaking and writing components on one certificate of the same date, to show that you have achieved or exceeded CEFR level BI in all four components.
Therefore, we cannot accept the TOEIC certificate dated 1 August 2012 you have provided in support of your application which shows only the Speaking score and not the Writing.
As you have failed to provide an appropriate certificate to show you have achieved or exceeded level B1 of the CEFR in all four components (reading, listening, speaking and writing), and therefore have not met this requirement, you have not achieved the maximum standard of English required and no points have been awarded for your CAS."
(4) the applicant provides the specified documents from an English language test provider approved by the Secretary of State for these purposes as listed in Appendix O, which clearly show:
i. the applicant's name,
ii. that the applicant has achieved or exceeded level B1 of the Council of Europe's Common European Framework for Language learning in all four components (reading, writing, speaking and listening), unless exempted from sitting a component on the basis of the applicant's disability,
iii. the date of the award, and
iv. that the test is within its validity date (where applicable)."
17. Nothing in the material to which my attention has been directed shows and I find that the Immigration Rules in force at the date of the appellant's application and the decision did not did not contain a clear requirement that the English-language qualification must be set out in one certificate, that the tests could not be broken down into one or more components with those components being tested on different dates or that a component failed on one occasion could not be retaken and passed on another occasion. I find that the appellant has established that tests passed by him and the certificates produced meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules.
18. In the circumstances it is not necessary for me to determine whether there was unfairness to the appellant or whether the respondent failed to follow any policy in relation to giving the appellant the opportunity to provide missing or inadequate documentation.
19. Having set aside the FTTJ's decision I remake it. I allow the appeal against the decision to remove the appellant by way of directions under s47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. I also allow the appeal under the Immigration Rules.
Signed Date 23 October 2013
Upper Tribunal Judge Moulden