[2025] UKUT 00091 (IAC)

Mr Nasim submitted that it was an error of fact for the Secretary of State to state that “no” utility bills for the applicant’s home and business premises had been provided, and that it was equally an error to state that “all” invoices addressed to Serena Euro were addressed to the second applicant. That is because there were some utility bills in the first applicant’s name, and not “all” invoices were addressed to the second applicant.

In my judgment, nothing turns on this. The Secretary of State was entitled to ascribe significance to the large numbers of business documents that were addressed to the second applicant, in the context of concluding that the first applicant was not the controlling mind behind Serena Euro. That the first applicant provided some domestic utility bills does not take matters any further, and certainly is incapable of demonstrating that the Secretary of State reached an irrational decision. Similarly, while some invoices were indeed addressed to the first applicant, the Secretary of State was entitled to ascribe significance to the overall package of materials which in the Secretary of State’s legitimate view (as to which, see below) demonstrated that the second applicant had a far greater and more significant controlling role in the company than the first applicant had suggested in the application for leave to remain.

For example, the invoices in the first applicant’s name were from Royal mail. There were two, dated 20 and 26 March 2023, for £3.35 each. The description of the goods was for a “Royal mail label.” There were no further details, the invoices do not even mention Serena Euro and are addressed to the first applicant personally. In isolation, these documents could not possibly demonstrate that the first applicant was the controlling mind or sole representative of the business, at the expense of the wealth of documents pertaining to the second appellant’s role and involvement in Serena Euro. These documents offer very low-level expenditure and cannot possibly demonstrate that the Secretary of State reached an irrational decision in concluding that the second applicant had a greater level of control over the company than the first applicant.

The remaining facets of ground 2 are disagreements of fact and weight. In light of the analysis that I have found the Secretary of State was entitled to conduct, nothing turns on the fact that the Secretary of State did not expressly refer to any additional documents. I have not been taken to anything in those documents that demonstrates that the Secretary of State’s approach to the matters already addressed in this judgment was in error.