![Aydogdu, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 2852 (Admin)](https://bararassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Photo_10-12-2019.jpg)
Aydogdu, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 2852 (Admin) – Sufficient Evidence of Funds
The case Aydogdu, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 2852 (Admin) demonstrates how it is crucial to provide adequate evidence of control over funds for applications made under the European Community Association Agreement (ECAA). Additionally, the court considered the issue of deception where the Claimant has made such an application as a visitor.
The Claimant, Mr Umut Aydogdu, is a Turkish national who entered the United Kingdom on 13 August 2016 as a visitor. His leave to remain was valid until 5 April 2017.
However, Claimant’s initial plan was to work in the UK. As a result of this, he prepared a business plan for running a barbershop and on 27 January 2017 submitted an application for leave to remain under ECAA, which allows Turkish nationals to operate a business in the EU.
The application, however, was refused by the Home Office on 2 February 2017 on the grounds that the Claimant was in breach of his previous leave and his initial entry clearance application was obtained by deception. Therefore, the Secretary of State was not satisfied that he was of good conduct and character. Thereafter, the Claimant’s administrative review application also was unsuccessful. The applicant sought an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on 25 May 2017, and the case was heard by the High Court of Justice.
The judgment acknowledged that the Claimant’s application was not supported by sufficient evidence of funds. Moreover, the judge agreed with the Home Office’s decision-maker that the applicant did not provide evidence that he had control of funds purposed to invest in his business. The judgment stressed the fact of immediate transfers made both into and out of his account. In order to show how important that investments should be under the applicant’s control, the judge simply quoted the following sentence from the decision of the Home Office:
“A gift from friends or family members must be supported by evidence that the lender is financially able to make the gift without the possibility of needing to recall the money.”
Furthermore, the applicant must be able to show that the majority of the investment funds are from their own money. Monies from other family members cannot be considered as assets of the applicant.
Additionally, the Judge acknowledged that work was done in breach of his visa.
This case should be taken into account not only for Turkish nationals intending to establish a business in the UK but also for other applicants planning to apply for business visas such as Tier 1 (Investor) and Tier 1 (Innovator).
Should you wish to discuss your immigration matter please do not hesitate to contact our professional team of immigration lawyers at barar.london@bararassociates.co.uk or call us at 020 7487 8370. You can access more information about us via https://bararassociates.com/.
