1. THE PREFACE
APPEAL AGAINST THE RESUAL OF ENTRY CLEARANCE FOR
Mr Dexiong Zhang
1. Post reference. Guangzhou/278848
Ho. Ref. N/A
Port Ref. N/A
Reps. 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.

2. APPEAL AGAINST THE RESUAL OF ENTRY CLEARANCE FOR
Mr 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)

3. 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).

4. 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 11th 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. Appendix a
(Page 17-21)

9. Appendix b
(Page 22 – 24)

10. Appendix c
(Page 25-26)

11. Appendix d
(Page 27 – 28)

12. Appendix e
(Page 29 – 35)

13. Appendix f
(Page 36 - 43)

14. Appendix g
(Page 44 – 52)

15. Appendix h
(Page 53 – 59)

16. Appendix i
(Page 60 – 66)

17. Appendix j
(Page 67 – 68)

18. Appendix k
(Page 69 – 70)

19. Appendix l
(Page 70 – 71)

20. Appendix m
(page 72 – 73)

21. Appendix n
(Page 74 – 75)