UI2024002550

             The appellant challenges the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Scullion (the judge) who on 24 th March 2024 dismissed the appellant's appeal against the refusal of his human rights claim by the Secretary of State on 26 th May 2023. The appellant's underlying application was made on 5 th May 2021.

             The applicant applied again for further permission to remain under Immigration Rules on the basis of his family and private life on 5 th May 2021. A decree nisi was granted to the appellant on 18 th March 2021 and on 11 th May 2021 he was divorced from Ms John. The application was refused on 26 th May 2023 and the appellant's subsequent appeal dismissed by the FtT in March 2024 and which generated this appeal.

             Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Jackson on 27 th June 2024 on the basis that it was arguable that the judge had erred in law particularly as there was no consideration of the impact of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal in 2018 that the appellant did not use deception in his TOEIC test in 2013, and so it was arguably wrong to find it was highly speculative to assume that the appellant would have met the ten years continuous residence Rules in March 2021.

             Ground (i)

At §20 the judge found it would be highly speculative to assume that the appellant would have been able to meet the requirements of the rules as it was not possible to be sure when his leave would have been granted had he made a successful application in October 2016. As noted before the FtT, however, AP (India) v SSHD [2015] warns against an unduly rigorous approach.