UTIAC Where a nanny lived in an employer’s home during a period where the employer had come to live in the United Kingdom, she: (a) was not living under the same roof as an employer but qualified under the alternative provision of 159A (ii) of ‘in a household the employer uses for himself on a regular basis’; (b) could not comply with 159A (iii) ‘intends to travel to the United Kingdom in the company of his employer’; but the appeal could be allowed without remittal for reconsideration where the Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent was bound to conclude that the appellant met the terms of a policy in an IDI.
Where the respondent relies on paragraph 320(7B) (d) to refuse an application for entry clearance because of a breach of the UK’s immigration laws by using ‘Deception in an application for entry clearance’ it is necessary to show that a false statement was deliberately made for the purpose of securing an advantage in immigration terms.
[2011] UKUT 197 (IAC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Immigration
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.441706