Entry Certificate Officer, New Delhi v. IND Kaur Baidwan; Inderjit Singh and Others v. Entry Certificate Officer, New Delhi

Immigration Appeal Tribunal

 

[1975] Imm AR 126

Hearing Date: 11 December 1974

11 December 1974

Index Terms:

Dependent parent -- Accommodation available to sponsoring son -- Inadequate in own home -- Bona fide arrangement made with married friend, owner of house with spare accommodation -- Whether accommodation arrangement complying with immigration rule -- Cmnd 4298, para 42.

Held:

When deciding whether a sponsor in the United Kingdom had 'adequate accommodation' for the reception of a dependent parent (with or without other relatives) under para 42 of Cmnd 4298, bona fide arrangements made for acquiring additional accommodation were not to be precluded from consideration in a case where accommodation in the sponsor's own home was insufficient, for it was not implicit from the provisions of para 42 that only the sponsor's own accommodation could be considered. n1 n1 Paragraph 42 of Cmnd 4298, so far as here material, reads as follows: --

"42. Widowed mothers... should be admitted for settlement provided that they hold entry certificates granted for that purpose. The Secretary of State will authorise the issue of entry certificates if satisfied that such parents are wholly or mainly dependent upon children settled in the United Kingdom who have sufficient means at their disposal, and adequate accommodation, to support both the parents and any other relatives admissible as their dependents...."

The Tribunal so held in the appeals which, on the issue of 'adequate accommodation' under para 42 of Cmnd 4298, are reported below. The relevant facts are set out in the determination. Francis v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([1972] Imm A R 162) and Entry Certificate Officer, Lahore v Abdullah ([1973] Imm A R 57), considered.

Counsel:

Preetam Singh, counsel for the respondent Ind Kaur Baidwan and the appellants Inderjit Singh and others. R. W. B. Hurley for the entry certificate officer. PANEL: P. N. Dalton Esq (Vice-President), Mrs. J. D. Caine, Sir Gordon Whitteridge.

Judgment One:

THE TRIBUNAL: On 7 July 1971 Ind Kaur Baidwan, widow of Pritam Singh, accompanied by Sukhdev Singh, Inderjit Singh, Harinder Singh and Karnail Kaur n2 applied at the British High Commission in New Delhi for entry certificates to enable them to Join Beant Singh Baidwan, who was said to be the son of Ind Kaur Baidwan and the brother of the other appellants. The sponsor lives at 40 St Joseph's Drive, Southall, Middlesex. n2 The application and appeal of Karnail Kaur were withdrawn when, at the hearing before the adjudicator on 19.8.73, it was reported that she had married in India since making her application for entry two years earlier. [The Tribunal then examined the facts relevant inter alia to the relationships claimed by the original appellants and to their degree of dependence on the sponsor Mr B. S. Baidwan. The sponsor purported to be the son of Ind Kaur Baidwan (a widow) and the eldest brother of the other applicants for entry. The Tribunal noted that the sponsor had emigrated to the United Kingdom in 1964; that he was employed as an income tax officer, and that with his wife and children he resided in a 5-roomed house which he had purchased with the help of a mortgage in 1968. The Tribunal also noted that the adjudicator (Sir John Cotton) had found Ind Kaur Baidwan to be the sponsor's dependent mother and had allowed her appeal, but had dismissed the appeal of the three purported brothers of the sponsor, inter alia because he was not satisfied as to the relationships claimed, alternatively because he was not satisfied (in the words of the Tribunal) 'that the sponsor was or would be in a position to maintain in this country at any reasonable standard of life the addition of four more members in his household, (at that time, August 1973, the sponsor and his wife had 4 children of their own); the adjudicator also gave his reasons for his considered opinion that there was no guarantee that the sponsor was or would be in a position to provide adequate accommodation for his family group coming from India'. The Tribunal then referred to the granting of leave to appeal to the Tribunal on the two separate issues of 'relationships' and 'accommodation'.] [This determination is reported only on the issue of 'adequate accommodation' under par 42 of Cmnd 4298. The Tribunal's determination continued: --] Dealing with the question of accommodation, Mr Preetam Singh said that the sponsor's own house has 3 bedrooms and 2 rooms downstairs and the maximum number of people allowed is seven. The sponsor was not in a position to buy a six-bedroom house but what he could do and had arranged to do was to rent additional accommodation so as to distribute the family load. Mohinder Singh Marway gave evidence to the effect that he owns a house with 3 bedrooms and 2 living-rooms in which he lives with his wife alone, having no children, and that he had agreed with the sponsor to give him free accommodation subject to sharing certain outgoings such as rates and charges for gas and electricity. This witness also said that he came from the same village as the sponsor and knows his mother Ind Kaur and his three brothers, the three appellants. Another witness Wazir Singh Sidhu said that he had been in India in 1972 and had visited the sponsor's village where he had seen the sponsor's mother and the appellants and had given them Rs500 and some clothing. [The Tribunal, after referring to further evidence relevant to the relationships claimed, expressed themselves as satisfied that it had been established that the appellant children were the brothers of the sponsor as claimed. The determination continued: --] Evidence was placed before the Tribunal that the sponsor's salary had increased and that the joint income of the sponsor and his wife is now some @ 3743 per annum. Mr Hurley said he would accept that the sponsor now has sufficient income to support the appellants. He added that this is new evidence, though it can be borne in mind that this appeal has been going on for a very long time. We also accept that the sponsor now has sufficient funds to support the appellants. Mr Hurley submitted that if the Tribunal were to find that the appellants are related as claimed to the sponsor, this matter came down to the question of accommodation, and if the Tribunal decided that the accommodation was not adequate then, in consequence of the wording of para 42 of Cmnd 4298, n3 the determination of the adjudicator as regards Ind Kaur should be overruled. n3 The relevant words of para 42 in Cmnd 4298 are set out in footnote 1, ante. We think that this submission is correct, but in fact we do not find that the accommodation is not adequate. Obviously the accommodation in the sponsor's own home is not sufficient for all the family but we do not think that it is implicit from the provisions of para 42 of Cmnd 4298 that only the sponsor's own accommodation can be considered and that bona fide arrangements for acquiring additional accommodation are precluded. We have considered the cases of Abdullah n4 and Francis n5, and in our view neither case purports to give such a ruling. We are satisfied that the sponsor has entered into a bona fide arrangement with a friend for additional accommodation for his family. n4 Entry Certificate Office, Lahore v Abdullah, [1973] Imm A R 57. n5 Francis v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1972] Imm A R. 162. As Mr Hurley said, further evidence, especially as to means, has been placed before us but in view of the fact the applications for entry certificates were made over three years ago we do not think that we should follow the normal course of directing that the new evidence should form the basis of fresh applications. For the reasons we have given the appeals of the three appellants are allowed and the appeal of the entry certificate officer is dismissed. We direct that the three appellants be granted entry certificates.

SOLICITORS:

Edward Mackie & Co, Greenford, Midd'x