VA015432014

The Appellant appealed against that decision arguing that her evidence was credible but had been ignored by the Respondent. Although this was not a spouse case the logic of cases such as MM was that financial issues should be considered under human rights grounds.

The Judge rejected the argument and at paragraph [17] considered the Article 8 factors in the case when assessing the proportionality exercise. The Judge wrote:

The Judge found at paragraph 11 that the Appellant could meet the maintenance and accommodation requirements of paragraph 41 because the Sponsor was able to afford to maintain and accommodate the Appellant if she were to arrive. However at paragraph 12 the Judge doubted the evidence he had received regarding the Appellant's own finances. He dismissed the appeal.

The Appellant renewed her application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in broadly similar terms. The application came before Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb on 6 th July 2015. In granting permission to appeal he wrote:

"Whether the Appellant met the requirements of the Immigration Rules is relevant to the proportionality exercise but the grounds are unarguable to the extent that they assert that a decision would be 'not in accordance with the law' under Article 8.2 if the Appellant met the requirements of paragraph 41. Nevertheless if the point in (2) [in the grounds of onward appeal] is established this may well affect the sustainability of any decision under Article 8."