OA043872013

I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.

The Judge in dismissing the appeal considered only the Appellant�s Article 8 ECHR rights. This was because the Appellant had the right of appeal only on, in this case, human rights grounds by operation of Section 89 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Judge dismissed the appeal because he found that the Appellant had no family or private life in the UK.

At the hearing, the Sponsor, the Appellant�s daughter Shaminer Julien, appeared unrepresented. She indicated that she was happy for the appeal hearing to proceed, and argued that the Judge had erred in law. She referred to the grounds of application and said that the Judge should have considered whether the Appellant was a genuine visitor or not.

In response, Mr Saunders submitted that there was no such error of law. The only issue before the Judge was the Appellant�s Article 8 rights, and he had dealt with those by way of a finding that the Appellant had no family or private life in the UK. This was a sustainable decision.

I found no error of law in the decision of the Judge so that it should be set aside. My reasons for that conclusion are as follows. As Mr Saunders argued, the only issue before the Judge was the Appellant�s Article 8 rights. The Judge found that the Appellant had no family or private life in the UK for the reasons he gave at paragraph 15 of the Determination. That was a decision open to the judge on the evidence before him and which he adequately explained. As the Judge had found that the Appellant had no family or private life in the UK he was not obliged to consider proportionality.