OA172292013 & OA172372013

This is an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer, against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Jackson) allowing the respondent's appeal against the decision made on 23 July 2013 refusing to grant the applicants entry clearance to the UK as the partner and child of the sponsor, the first applicant's husband and the second applicant's father. In this decision I will refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal, the applicants as the appellants and the Entry Clearance Officer as the respondent.

The appellants' applications for entry clearance were refused on 23 July 2013 on the basis that they could not meet the immigration status or the maintenance and accommodation requirements of the Rules. An appeal against this decision was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal in a decision issued on 13 November 2014 but that decision was set aside by the Upper Tribunal on 31 March 2015 and the decision was remitted for rehearing by the First-tier Tribunal.

The judge noted that the second appellant was a child at the date of decision although he was now an adult. She found that it was predominantly in his best interests to remain with his mother who had brought him up and with whom he had lived since birth. She noted that there were no clear or compelling factors suggesting that it would be in the second appellant's best interests to reside in the UK, rather than in India, and that it was arguable that at his age, continuity of residence in the country where he was socially and culturally aware was of considerable importance.

Mr Tarlow submitted that there was nothing compelling in the facts of this case to justify a grant of discretionary leave outside the Rules. It was open to the first appellant to make a further application which may well be granted but that was no justification in itself for allowing the appeal under article 8 grounds.

Ms Jegarajah submitted that the judge had reached a decision properly open to her. She had taken into account that this was an admission, rather than an expulsion case. The judge had looked at all the relevant factors both for and against a finding that removal would be disproportionate. Her decision was wholly sustainable for the reasons she gave.