OA078412015 & HU070612016

This is an appeal by Aliya Bibi against two decisions to refuse her entry clearance to the UK as a spouse. The appeals had an OA and an HU number and was heard at Hatton Cross on the 11 th January this year by Judge Pedro. The critical decision or refusal notice had been issued on the 12 th February 2016 and so it is clear that there had been the best part of a year in which the case could be prepared.

The Judge gave a lengthy and detailed decision. He began by setting out the issues that he believed had to be decided, whether or not the marriage was genuine and subsisting, the question of employment and the ability to maintain the Appellant and the accommodation that was available. Of course the primary and first issue that he would have to decide would be that of whether the marriage was genuine and subsisting.

This was not the only absence of evidence that the Judge had regard to. There were a selection of photocopied telephone cards, he referred to these in paragraph 10. There appeared to be no more than were produced to the Respondent. Those did not identify the persons involved in any conversations or their length although I understand that background evidence can be available.

In paragraph 11 the Judge referred to the remittances. It was noted there that remittances could have been printed from the computer as the witness indicated but that had not been done for the purposes of the hearing. We found that explanation unsatisfactory.

It is a Ground of Appeal that the Judge erred with regard to the case of Goudey on the issue of the genuine and subsisting nature of the marriage and that the Judge should have had regard to telephone phone cards. The fact that he did have regard to the evidence but it does not necessarily follow that because those cards were produced it inevitably leads to the conclusion that is being forced on or erred on the Judge.