VA053092014

The Appellant ( the Secretary of State) appealed with permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Fisher on 4 June 2015 against the decision and reasons of First-tier Tribunal Judge Iain Ross who had allowed the Respondent's appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds against refusal of his entry clearance application made under paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules to visit his uncle and other relatives in the United Kingdom. The decision and reasons was promulgated on 13 February 2015.

Permission to appeal was granted because it was considered arguable that the judge had erred in law when finding that although there was no family life between the Appellant and his sponsors (his uncle and grandmother), the concept of private life could include the development of relationships of that nature under Article 8 ECHR. It was arguable that the judge erred when finding that the refusal decision constituted an interference.

Standard directions were made by the tribunal, indicating that the appeal would be reheard immediately if a material error of law were found.

In reply, Mr Bramble indicated that the Secretary of State had not specifically challenged the judge's paragraph 320(7) of the Immigration Rules finding in the Respondent's favour. The real issue was the judge's approach to private life.

Singh (above), also decided after Judge Ross had promulgated his decision and reasons, reiterates from a survey of ECHR jurisprudence that Article 8 ECHR in both its private and family life aspects is not territorially confined to persons in the United Kingdom. Family life between adults is a question of fact to be determined in each case.