OA099452013

The Appellant in this appeal was the Respondent at the First-tier Tribunal hearing on 10 April 2015. However, for ease of reference, the Appellant and Respondent are hereafter referred to as they were before the First-tier Tribunal. Therefore Mrs Manota is referred to as the Appellant and the Secretary of State is referred to as the Respondent.

b. In MM v SSHD [2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin) , the Judge usurped the role of the democratically elected decision-maker in the formulation of policy and had insufficient regard to the width of discretion afforded to the Secretary of State in formulating policy. If he had applied the proper principles of proportionality, he would have been compelled to the conclusion that the interference in the Article 8 rights of applicants and their families caused by the material provisions of the Immigration Rules was proportionate. The Judge thereby erred in relying on MM .

Mr Mills made no further submissions by way of reply and both he and the Sponsor accepted that if I found that the Judge had materially erred in law in reaching his decision, I would remake the decision on the basis of the evidence before me.

I therefore set aside the decision if the Judge and remake the decision under Article 8 as follows:

There are material errors of law in the determination of Judge Hunter as set out above such that the determination falls to be set aside on the Article 8 rounds only. For the reasons set out above, I remake the decision to dismiss the Appellant's appeal under Article 8.