UI2023003371

             The respondent considered, under paragraphs GEN.3.1. and GEN.3.2. of Appendix FM as applicable, whether there were exceptional circumstances in the appellant's case which could or would render refusal a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR because it could or would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the appellant or his family. Based on the information provided the respondent decided that there were no such exceptional circumstances in this case.

             In re-examination she confirmed that she wanted to have a child with her husband but it would be difficult if her husband was not allowed to come to the United Kingdom because it would be difficult for him to see the child. In answer to questions from me, the sponsor said that the first time the appellant had applied to come to the United Kingdom to see her was in 2017, a year after the marriage. She could not have applied earlier because she was not working at that time.

         In closing for the appellant reliance was placed by counsel on his skeleton argument. The important point in the case was the criteria that the application for entry clearance was tested against. Citing paragraph 60 of Agyarko the skeleton argument stated:

"It remains the position that the ultimate question is how a fair balance should be struck between the competing public and individual interests involved, applying a proportionality test.

"circumstances in which refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the individual such that the refusal of the application would not be proportionate".