IA212692015 & Ors.

The Appellant entered the United Kingdom with a Tier 4 Student visa on 14 th May 2010 valid until 30 th January 2012. He was granted leave to remain in this capacity for a further period from 6 th September 2012 to 28 th June 2014 but his leave to remain was curtailed on 30 th January 2014. He was then granted further leave to remain as a Tier 4 Student for the period 19 th May 2014 to 24 th June 2015. Subsequently that leave to remain was curtailed to 6 th February 2015. Mrs Patel, D and K are all dependants on his appeal.

The Respondent considered that the Appellants did not meet the requirements of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. Mrs Patel was in the United Kingdom with only limited leave to remain and the Appellant could not therefore succeed under the partner route. Whilst the Appellant and Mrs Patel had a genuine and subsisting relationship the application fell for refusal under the eligibility requirements of the Rules which were mandatory and thus they could not succeed under Section EX1 of Appendix FM.

The children were citizens of India but had not been in the United Kingdom for at least seven years. Whilst the Appellant and Mrs Patel were in a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with their children their application under this section too fell for refusal under the eligibility requirements of the Rules which were mandatory.

The Appellant states that he sent a letter by fax to the Tribunal on 7 th August 2015 seeking an oral hearing and offering to pay the additional fee. He has produced a copy of his letter which appears to show that it was faxed on that date to the First-tier Tribunal at Birmingham. The Tribunal has no record of having received such a letter.

The matter was listed before Judge Sangha at Birmingham on 20 th August 2015 as a paper case. The Judge had evidently not seen any correspondence from the Appellant requesting an oral hearing or otherwise. At paragraphs 13 to 21 the Judge gave his reasons why he dismissed the appeal. The Appellants could not succeed under the Rules and the Judge accepted the reasons given by the Respondent as to why the application failed. It was reasonable to expect the adult Appellants and their children to return to India as a family unit and continue to enjoy their family life together there.