VA012872014 & VA012882014

In his Article 8 assessment, the judge took into account guidance given in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27 , Shamin Box [2002] UKIAT 02212 and other authorities. In the particular circumstances of the case, having found that Article 8 was engaged, he came to the conclusion that refusal of entry clearance amounted to a disproportionate response. In his weighing of the competing factors, he had regard to section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

In a rule 24 response prepared by the appellants� solicitors on 19 March 2015 reliance was placed upon Mostafa [2015] UKUT 112 (IAC) . The judge did not materially err. On the contrary, his reasoning was consisted with guidance given in that case.

At the outset, I explained to Mr Budhirajy the procedure to be followed. He confirmed that he understood that he would have an opportunity to respond to Mr Walker�s submissions, made on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Mr Walker said that the rule 24 response unsurprisingly referred to Mostafa . It was fair to say that the judge�s approach led to a conclusion similar to the one reached by the Presidential Panel in Mostafa . The appellants had not overstayed their visas in the past. The Secretary of State contended that the appeals ought not to have been allowed and that the proportionality assessment was not adequate. On the other hand, the judge clearly had considered Article 8 in some detail.

Mr Budhirajy said that the family was tightly knit. He wanted his parents to visit and then return to India. They had visited in the past and not overstayed. The processes were very lengthy and nearly a year had passed since the applications for entry clearance. The family had wished to make a fresh application and were told that this was possible but, on the other hand, that a fresh application would only be accepted if the appeals were withdrawn. Mr Budhirajy said that his wife was expecting a child in July 2015.