OA003212014 & OA003252014

On 2 February 2015 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Mark Davies granted the appellants permission to appeal. His reasons for so doing were:-

�1. The appellants seeks (sic) permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (the judge) promulgated on 8 th December 2014 who dismissed the appellants� appeal against the decision to refuse them entry clearance as adult dependants on Article 8 grounds.

The grounds and the determination do disclose an arguable error of law. The judge appears to have given no consideration to prospective breaches of fundamental rights and that is a matter that is relevant to the issue of proportionality.�

Mr Wilford referred me to paragraph 14 of the judge�s decision where she finds that family life does exist between the appellants and their father for the purposes of Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and that the appellant are emotionally, financially and culturally dependent upon their parents. He also referred me to the following paragraph wherein is an analysis of the appellants� family�s arrivals and departures from Nepal. Paragraph 15 of the judge�s decision states:-

He argued that the judge erred in concluding that the instant decision did not amount to a breach and drew my attention to Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 contending that it envisages consideration of the lawfulness or otherwise of future breaches. Likewise he argued that the test in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27 is formulated in the future tense: