The Grounds for Review
The Grounds for Review
The terms “unsecured” and “subordinated” are not defined in the immigration rules. The applicant claims:
The respondent has misconstrued the rules as requiring a loan agreement to state in terms that the loan is unsecured and is subordinated. Paragraph 45(d)(iii) of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules does not require the loan agreement to expressly “state” that the loan is unsecured and subordinated. It requires the agreement to “show” that the loan is unsecured and subordinated: Ground 1
The respondent failed to assess whether the terms of the applicant’s loan agreement do in fact “show” that the loan is unsecured and subordinated. The respondent’s enquiry went no further than observing that the terms “unsecured” and “subordinated” do not feature in the agreement: Ground 2
The respondent could not reasonably conclude that the loan agreement did not show that the loan was unsecured and subordinated: Ground 3
- Heading
- The requirement in paragraph 45(d)(iii) of Appendix A to the immigration rules for specified evidence of investment in the form of a director’s loan, imposes a requirement that the loan agreement itse
- Background
- The Grounds for Review
- The Legal Framework
- The Respondent’s Guidance
- The Authorities
- The Director’s Loan Agreement
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 00418 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png)