IA199432014

The appellant appeals against a determination by Designated First-tier Tribunal Judge Murray promulgated on 31 st July 2014, dismissing her appeal against refusal of leave to remain. She accepted that she could not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules, and argued her case under Article 8 of the ECHR only.

(To avoid any further procedural confusion, it should be noted that the purported notice of appeal by the appellant�s daughter (IA/19977/2014) was subject to a notice of no valid appeal issued on 27 th May 2014. There are no extant proceedings in which she is an appellant. She is involved only as a dependant. The grant of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal errs in identifying two appellants.)

The grounds are clear and quite detailed. They were reproduced as a skeleton argument, to which Mr Sabir initially had nothing to add. Five main points are raised:

(i) (paragraph 2 of the grounds): at paragraph 55 of the determination the judge failed to take account of all relevant circumstances; did not see that there were no real inconsistencies in the evidence concerning a relative of the appellant�s partner, said to be a brother, half-brother or uncle, and about whether the appellant and her partner met in Edinburgh or in London; and if there were any inconsistencies, failed to take account of the explanations for them;

(ii) (paragraph 3): at paragraph 57, in deciding to give little weight to a letter from an advocate in Ghana, the judge failed to ask herself the correct question; should not have found that the information conveyed in the letter, stemming from the appellant�s guardian, was from a partial or tainted source; and should not have found that the fact that the letter was designed to support the appeal detracted from its veracity;