[2024] UKUT 00281 (IAC)

The Respondent maintained its original decision in its administrative review decision dated 17^th July 2023, beginning at page [79]/CB. In that decision, the Respondent acknowledged that the refusal had been incorrect in referring to paragraph 245DD(d) when it ought to have referred to paragraph 245 DD(b). I observe that nothing turns on that, other than to say that the correction is undoubtedly justified.

In relation to the issue of the website address, the Respondent accepted that its interviewer had written down the website address wrongly, but said:

“however I would expect a genuine entrepreneur to be able to provide the correct web address and should this contain any anomaly that this should have been explained when providing the web address when requested. Furthermore it is also noted that this web address lack [sic] functionality.”

The Applicant criticises this first, for making no sense, and second, ignoring that the Applicant had provided the correct website address in writing before the interview, which it was reasonable to expect the interviewer to have checked.

On the issue of the relationship between Level Three Trading FZE and Level Three, the Respondent noted that the Applicant claimed to have had prior relationships with Level Three Trading FZE before setting up his business, and the owners had been old friends for 15 years. While the Respondent accepted that the two were separate limited companies in different countries, the Respondent, “would expect a genuine entrepreneur to have expanded the business to incorporate new clients and businesses” (page [84]/CB).