THE PREFACE

APPEAL AGAINST THE RESUAL OF ENTRY CLEARANCE FORMr Dexiong Zhang

1. Post reference. Guangzhou/278848Ho. Ref. N/APort Ref. N/AReps. Ref. CH0062

2. Appellant Mr Dexiong Zhang RepresentativeHorizon Immigration Services Respondent Entry Clearance Office Sponsor Water Margin Chinese Restaurant

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

11th Feb 2009 Work permit number F544220 was issued and related document was sent from the U.K. for the Appellant to apply for Entry Clearance.

7th April 2009 The Appellant has handed visa application to the visa application centre in Guangzhou.

11th May 2009 British Consulate carried out local checks in relating to the Appellant’s past and present employments.

11th May 2009 The Entry Clearance was dissatisfied with the result of the checks carried out. Hence, has refused the entry clearance application to the UK without interviewing the Appellant.

28th May 2009 The Sponsor, Water Margin Restaurant have appointed Horizon Immigration Services as their representative for the appeal.

8th June 2009 The Appeal was lodged from the Representative under the instruction of the Sponsor by post, along with all supporting documents.

APPEAL AGAINST THE RESUAL OF ENTRY CLEARANCE FORMr Dexiong Zhang

1. Post Ref. Guangzhou/278848 Ho. Ref. N/A Port Ref. N/A Reps. Ref. CH0062

2. Appellant Mr Dexiong Zhang Representative Horizon Immigration Services Respondent Entry Clearance Office Sponsor Water Margin Chinese Restaurant

3. A chronology of events is attached as the Preface.

4. Documents relevant to this appeal are attached (Appendices a to n)a. Statement from the Assistant Sales Manager of Deyue Fang confirming the

conversation she has had with the British Consulate personnel during the check with translation (Page 17 – 21)

b. Statement from the Assistant Floor Manager of DeYue Fang Restaurant with translation (page 22 - 24)

c. Statement from the Floor Manager of Deyue Fang Restaurant to confirm Mr Dexiong Zhang’s employment at Deyue Fang with translation (Page 25 – 26)

d. Statement from the Floor Manager of Deyue Fang Restaurant to confirm Mr Manchi Li’s employment at Deyue Fang with translation (Page 27 – 28)

e. Statement from the Director of Production department of Jinmei Restaurant to conform the Appellant’s employment and the content of conversation during British Consulate Check with translation (Page 29 – 35)

f. Statement from the Vice Executive Chef of Jinmie restaurant confirming the Appellants employment and the content of conversation during the British Consulate Check with translation (page 36 – 43)

g. Statement from the Appellant himself confirming the content of conversation during the British Consulate General Check with translation (Page 44 – 52)

h. Attendance record provided by the personnel department of Jinmei Restaurant confirming the Appellant is employed as claimed (page 53 – 59)

i. Attendance record provided by the personnel department of Jinmei Restaurant for the Vice Executive Chef Mr Manchi LI (page 60 – 66)

j. Summary of the Appellant’s mother’s hospital discharge with translation (Page 67 – 68)

k. Pathological Diagnostic Examination for the Appellant’s mother with translation (Page 69 – 70)

l. Certificate of Disease for the Appellant’s mother with translation (page71 - 72

m. Examination Report of the Appellant’s mother with translation (page 73 – 74)

n. X-Ray Examination Report of the Appellant’s mother with translation (page 75 – 76)

Detail of appellant

5. The appellant, Dexiong Zhang, male, applied entry clearance to the United Kingdom as a Work Permit holder, in order to come to the U.K. to take up employment as specified on his Work Permit, and was refused.

The Respondent’s Case

6. The Appellant has provided references from Jin Mei Restaurant and Deyue Fang Restaurant. In his visa application form he has stated that you worked for Deyue Fang Restaurant from 1983 until July 2008 and presently he is employed by Jin Mei Restaurant since August 2008 as Second Chef. Local checks carried out show that he is not employed as claimed by both restaurants. Therefore, the Respondent was not satisfied that he intends to take up employment as specified in his work Permit as required by Paragraph 128 (iv) of HC395.

As false representations have been made and false documents have been submitted in relation to your application, it is refused under Paragraph 320(7A) of HC395.

Summary

7. The detail reasons for the refusal can be summarized as follow:i) The ECO was satisfied that the Appellant’s application meets the

requirements of all sub0paragraphs of paragraph 128 of the Immigration Rules;

ii) However, the Appellant has provided references from Jin Mei Restaurant and Deyue Fang Restaurant. In his visa application form he has stated that you worked for Deyue Fang Restaurant from 1983 until July 2008 and presently he is employed by Jin Mei Restaurant since August 2008 as Second Chef. Local checks carried out show that he is not employed as claimed by both restaurants. Therefore, the Respondent was not satisfied that he intends to take up employment as specified in his work Permit as required by Paragraph 128 (iv) of HC395;

iii) As false representations have been made and false documents have been submitted in relation to your application, it is refused under Paragraph 320(7A) of HC395.

8. In light of the above the Respondent was not prepared to exercise discretion in the Appellant’s favour.

9. It was clearly that the ECO has made the decision based on the material available and the result of the local checks at the time of his decision. We are making this appeal only because that the Appellant actually met the requirements of paragraph 128 (iv) of HC 395. The local checks have failed to offer the ECO satisfactory results was only due to miscommunication and misunderstanding between the British Consulate General personnel and all the people she has spoken to during the local checks carried out in relation to the Appellant’s present and past employments. Therefore, no false representations have been made and no false documents have been submitted in relation to the application, and has provided new information to confirm this (Appendices a to l).

The Grounds of Appeal

10. The Appeal is made on the grounds of the Appellant:

i) Does intend to take up employment as specified on the Work Permit;ii) No false representation have been made and no false documents have been

submitted in relation to the application;iii) Hence, the Appellant meets the requirements from paragraph 128 (iv) of HC

295, and should not be refused under paragraph 320(7A) of HC395 and is therefore qualified for admission to the U.K.

The Argument

11. The ECO was not satisfied that the Appellant is intend to take up employment as specified in his work permit as required by paragraph 128 (iv) of HC395. The ECO has came into this conclusion because the Appellant has provided references from Deyue Fang Restaurant and Jinmei Restaurant accompanying the visa application, local checks have been carried out show that the Appellant is not employed as claimed by both restaurant.

12. After receiving the refusal notice, the Appellant has carried out his own investigation with both his present and past employers. The result of the investigation has shown a different side to the refusal. The Appellant’s past employer Deyue Fang Restaurant has confirmed that an female personnel from the British Consulate General telephoned Deyue Fang Restaurant on 11 th May 2009, she has spoken to the restaurant’s Assistant manager of the Sales Department – Miss Shuqun Xiong and Miss Xiong indeed has replied that she has no knowledge of a Mr Dexiong Zhang. However, in Miss Xiong’s statement (Appendix a, page 17 – 24) she has clearly stated that there are 8 separate departments within the Deyue Fang Restaurant. In each department, there is a manager and an Assistant manager, so totaling to 16. However, as the British Consulate Personnel has only asked to speak to a Manager when a receptionist answered, she therefore has taken the call.

13. Miss Xiong also stated in her statement that she is the Assistant Sales Manager of the Sales Department, the department’s main responsibilities are for Marketing and receiving large banquet orders, and that the department seldom gets in touch with other employees within the kitchen department. Hence, she would not know who Dexiong Zhang is when asked. She has also added she

would not know him when he is working for the restaurant, let alone he had resigned. In Miss Xiong’s opinion, when the Embassy called to enquire about a member of kitchen staff who has already resigned from the restaurant, why did they not ask to speak to the right person? Miss Xiong further mentioned that she agreed she should bear responsibility that Mr Zhang’s application was rejected, but the personal from the consulate should also bear the responsibility, because she did not conduct the check with the correct person or the correct department.

14. Furthermore, the Assistant Floor Manager and the Floor Manager have also provided references that the Appellant is employed as claimed (Appendix b and c, page 22 -24, and page 25 – 26). The Appellant agreed that the British Consulate General should carry out appropriate checks to ensure that all the documentations provided to support his application are genuine. However, the Appellant felt that if the check with his past employer was carried out with the correct department, this miscommunication will not have occurred. The Appellant also understood that he was refused under paragraph 320(7A) of HC395, and any future applications he submits will be automatically refused, subsequently he will be facing a 10 year ban. He therefore is appealing to protect his future immigration record and that he felt unjust that his application should be refused even when he is a genuine chef employed as claimed.

15. The ECO was also unable to confirm that the Appellant is employed as claimed by his current employer – Jinmei Restaurant. The restaurant’s Vice Executive Chef (Mr manchi Li) and the Director of Production (Mr Runtang Xu) have both participated in the local checks carried out by the British Consulate General Guangzhou and both of them were asked to confirm the Appellant’s employment with Jinmei Restaurant. They have each provided a statement with details of the conversation they each had with the person who telephoned from the British Consulate General (Appendix e and f, Page 29 – 35, and 36 - 43).

16. From the telephone conversation they have had with the BC Guangzhou, both Mr Li and Mr Xu were able to confirm that the Appellant is employed by the restaurant, and is holding the second chef position since September 2008. After the person from BC Guangzhou has spoken to Mr Li and Mr Xu, she has also telephoned the Appellant, who has also confirmed the details of his employment. Hence, the Appellant was unable to comprehend why the ECO would state they were unable to confirm this employment either.

17. The Appellant has explained in his own statement (Appendix g, Page 44 - 52), on 11th May 2009 before the person from BC Guanzghou has telephoned, he was at Zhuhai People’s Hospital picking up his mother who was being discharged on that same day. Mr Zhang stated that his mother was admitted into hospital on 29th April 2009 due to having blood in her stool, but during the 12 days hospital admission, the doctors have diagnosed his mother to be suffering from Rectal Adenocarcinoma and metastasis of both lungs, doctor’s diagnostic and X-Ray examination report to confirm this (Appendix J to N, page 67 - 76).

18. The Appellant has also stated in his statement before his mother’s discharge, the doctor has informed him that his mother’s cancer is terminal and she only has months left. Mr Zhang was originally given a day of leave because he was

picking his mother up from the hospital, but he decided to cancel the second half day of leave with the Director of production Mr Runtang XU because his mother was deeply distraught by the bad news, she therefore would like to be alone. Mr Zhang added in his statement that he had received the telephone call from Consulate General straight after the conversation he has had with Mr Xu. Therefore, different indication were given to the person telephoned from the Consulate General by Mr Manchi Li, Mr Runtang Xu and the Appellant about whether he is working on that day. Hence, misunderstanding occurred.

19. As the Appellant was not provided with the Respondent bundle, he could only assume that this is the reason that made the ECO believe he is not employed by Jinmei Restaurant as claimed. Furthermore, Mr Zhang has stated in his statement that finding out his mother is suffering from terminal cancer is a very upsetting news, and on the same day when the Respondent has telephoned, he should have clarified his situation better and may be it would make a difference to the result of his application. The Human Resources Department of Jinmei Restaurant has provided attendance record of the Appellant to show that he is employed as claimed (Appendix h, page 53 – 59).

20. In the statement provided by Mr Manchi Li he confirmed that he was the signatory of both of Mr Zhang’s reference letters provided by Deyue Fang and Jinmei Restaurants. Mr Li was the kitchen supervisor of Deyue Fang Restaurant, but when he departed from his past employment to take up the Vice Executive Chef position at Jinmei Restaurant, he has persuaded the Appellant and some other skilful chefs to go to the new employment together. Therefore, he is still the Appellant’s superior in Jinmei Restaurant (Appendix f, Page 36 - 43). Deyue Fang restaurant and Jinmei Restaurant have also provided Mr Li’s employment record to confirm he was also employed at both restaurants (Appendix d and I, page 27 – 28, and page 60 - 66).

21. In the refusal notice, the ECO has mentioned that Mr Zhang has worked for Deyue Fang Restaurant since 1983 to 2008, which did not coincide with the reference letter provided. When confronting Mr Zhang, he has no idea how an extra 20 years of work experience in Deyue Fang Restaurant came from. Mr Zhang could only suggest that before he handed his application the visa application centre, he has asked the Guangzhou Qiaolian Translation Company which is located nearby to the Tianhe visa application centre to fill in the application form for him, in order for the translation company to get the most accurate information, he even provided both of his reference letters as well as confirming the dates by mouth. Mr Zhang has therefore no idea how this mistake can be made (Appendix g, Page 44 - 52).

22. Mr Zhang’s current and past employers have provided additional supporting documents to prove that the Appellant is employed as claimed. From the documentations, statements provided the Appellant is indeed employed as claimed. The ECO came to the conclusion that Mr Zhang is not employed by either restaurants is due to misunderstanding and miscommunication.

The Evidence

23. In support of this appeal, the Appellant had provided additional supporting evidence from both his past and current employers to prove that he is indeed employed as claimed and he therefore is intend to take up employment as specified in his work permit as required by Paragraph 128 (iv) of HC395. Therefore, no false representation has been made and no dales documentations have been submitted in relation to the Appellant’s application. The application hence should not have been refused under Paragraph 320(A) of HC395.

The Conclusion

24. There is no doubt that the Appellant is in Possession of a genuine work permit issued by the UK Border Agency (Work Permits (UK)) after they are satisfied that the Appellant’s UK prospective employer is capable of offering a genuine vacancy; The Appellant have also provided additional supporting evidence from both of his past and present employers to prove that he is employed as claimed. The ECO came to the conclusion that they are unable to confirm that the Appellant is employed by either restaurants are mainly due to miscommunication and misunderstanding. It was not because pf false representation and false documentation was submitted. Therefore the Appellant meets the requirements of paragraph 128 (iv) of HC 395 and the refusal under Paragraph 320(7A) of HC320 should be withdrawn.

The Final Submission

25. Given these conclusions, I humbly request this appeal to be allowed and the Appellant to be admitted to the U.K. to take up the employment as specified on the Work Permit.

Appendix a

(Page 17-21)

Appendix b

(Page 22 – 24)

Appendix c

(Page 25-26)

Appendix d

(Page 27 – 28)

Appendix e

(Page 29 – 35)

Appendix f

(Page 36 - 43)

Appendix g

(Page 44 – 52)

Appendix h

(Page 53 – 59)

Appendix i

(Page 60 – 66)

Appendix j

(Page 67 – 68)

Appendix k

(Page 69 – 70)

Appendix l

(Page 70 – 71)

Appendix m

(page 72 – 73)

Appendix n

(Page 74 – 75)