IA017992013 & ors

The appellants are husband, wife and two children, all citizens of Ghana. On 2 January 2013 the respondent refused their applications for leave to remain as a PBS (Points Based System) Migrant and three dependants. They appeal against a determination by First-tier Tribunal Quigley, promulgated on 27 June 2013, dismissing their appeals against those decisions.

� The judge appears to have concluded that � the [first] appellant could [not] maintain himself in the UK without recourse to public funds because his accounts were regularly overdrawn � The judge erred � as the fact that the appellant was regularly overdrawn would not have precluded him from being a burden to the public purse [ sic ]. Her misconstruction � amounts to an error in law.

� The judge at paragraph 33 � misdirected herself [in] assessing the Article 8 case. The judge failed to set out what circumstances were considered in finding that the refusal did not amount to a breach of Article 8 � there was no detailed consideration � as to the circumstances of the sponsor�s [ sic ; presumably this should be �first appellant�s� ] family life or any balancing exercise � to provide a sound basis for the findings � made.

� The judge despite being directed � in the appellant�s representative�s submissions � paid no regard to the best interests of the [first] appellant�s children and fails to justify her lack of favourable discretion at paragraph 34 which is essential given that [the first appellant�s] son was only 6 months off � the 7 year qualifying mark in accordance with paragraph EX1.

Permission was granted on the view that the judge might not have differentiated clearly between the consideration under the Rules and a �freestanding proportionality assessment�, which had arguably not been conducted �within the correct legal framework�.