IA002692016

For the Appellant: Miss J Norman (counsel, instructed by Sterling & Law Associates LLP)

The Appellant, a Russian national, had sought variation of his leave to remain in the UK but that was refused by the Secretary of State for the reasons given in the Refusal Letter of the 9 th of December 2015. The appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Talbot at Hendon on the 23 rd of January 2017 and dismissed for the reasons given in the decision promulgated on the 9 th of February 2017. The Appellant sought permission to appeal in grounds of the 23 rd of February 2017, permission was granted on the 5 th of October 2017 by Upper Tribunal Judge Plimmer.

Upper Tribunal Judge Plimmer granted permission on the basis that it was arguable that the Judge erred in requiring compelling circumstances to address article 8, irrationally finding that the circumstances discussed in paragraphs 18 to 21 did not constitute compelling circumstances and failing to adequately reason that there would be no disproportionate interference with the Appellant's article 8 rights.

The submissions are set out in the Record of Proceedings and referred to where relevant below. For the Appellant reliance was placed on Chikwamba and Hayat (nature of Chikwamba principle) [2011] UKUT 444 (IAC) and that there was no sensible reason for requiring the Appellant to re-apply from abroad and there was no finding on that point. Secondly the Judge should have considered the effect on the Appellant's private and family life holistically.

For the Home Office it was submitted that the question was whether the Appellant had shown that a temporary separation from his family was disproportionate. In addition to Hayat the case of Chen [2015] UKUT 189 (IAC) was also relevant. Paragraph 18 was referred to and in paragraph 22 the Judge found that taken together the circumstances were not sufficient.