OA038622013

This is an appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sangha promulgated on 14 th December 2013, following a hearing at Birmingham Sheldon Court on 3 rd December 2013. In the determination, the judge dismissed the appeal of Mrs Salma Begum, who applied for, and was granted subsequently, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matter comes before me.

The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan who was born on 3 rd March 1994. She appeals against the refusal by the Entry Clearance Officer in Islamabad to refuse her application for entry clearance to join her spouse, Mr Imtiaz Mohammed, a person present and settled in the UK, as his partner, under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, in a decision that was decided on 27 th November 2012.

On 10 th March 2014, permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the judge ought to have taken into account Article 8 considerations of his own motion by reason of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, even if, following the High Court judgment in MM [2013] EWHC 1900 , the judge felt that the Appellant could not succeed under the Immigration Rules.

At the hearing before me on 13 th June 2014, Mr Ali, of Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that Article 8 had been overlooked by the judge, even though it had been specifically pleaded in the skeleton argument submitted before the judge. Under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, a decision by a public authority must be compatible with human rights obligations. Mr Ali accepted that the judge had summarised the evidence at paragraphs 15 to 16 of the determination quite accurately.

He also accepted that the Appellant could not meet the requirement of providing evidence in a way that conformed with �specified evidence� obligations. However, the Article 8 considerations had to be looked at in the context of what the High Court said in MM [2013] EWHC 1900 . What was clear from that judgment was that the Sponsor�s status as a British citizen was not insignificant. Secondly, it was simply not correct that the Appellant�s income was �17,700, as found by the judge, because there had been an error, and a letter subsequently in January 2014 that confirmed this from the employers.