IA201152012

This is an appeal from the First-Tier Tribunal refusing an appeal against a decision dated 6 September 2012 refusing the appellant further leave to remain in this country.

The judge had regard to the nature of the balancing exercise which it was necessary to carry out in cases of this sort by reference to VW (Uganda) and AB (Somalia) v SSHT 2009 EWCA Civ 5 where it is stated that if a removal is to be held to be disproportionate:

�What must be shown is more than a mere hardship or a mere difficulty or a mere obstacle. The question in any one case will be whether the hardship consequent on removal will go far enough beyond this baseline to make removal a disproportionate use of immigration control. This in turn will depend, among many other factors, on the severity of the interference�.

�Given her immigration history, I find that it is reasonable for her to be expected to return and to make such an application which would then have to be considered on its own merits.�

We appreciate that the First-tier Tribunal judge made a finding that it would not be reasonable to expect AP to give up his job and home here and live in Thailand which he has never visited. Nevertheless, we cannot speculate on the outcome of an entry clearance application. If and when an application for entry clearance is made, the Entry Clearance Officer would need to consider the Article 8 rights of the appellant and AP on such evidence as is put forward at the relevant time.