OA039692014

The application for permission to appeal was made by the Secretary of State but nonetheless I shall refer to the parties as they were described before the First-tier Tribunal, that is Mrs Kuldeep Kaur as the appellant and the Secretary of State as the respondent. The respondent applies with permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 4 th September 2015 allowing the appellant's appeal against the Entry Clearance Officer's decision to refuse leave to enter as an adult dependent relative.

The grounds requesting permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal noted that the judge had allowed the appellant's appeal under paragraph E-ECDR of Appendix FM but asserted the judge had failed to give adequate reasons, failed to apply the correct standard and burden of proof and failed to make a finding on a material fact.

The judge had failed to record and failed to make any findings on the submissions raised by the respondent's representative at the hearing and the application relied on the case of Budhathoki (reasons for decisions) [2014] UKUT 341 (IAC) which stated:

"it is, however, necessary for judges to identify and resolve key conflicts in the evidence and explain in clear and brief terms their reasons, so that the parties can understand why they have won or lost".

The respondent submitted that as a party to the proceedings she was entitled to know why the submissions were not considered. There was no record of any submissions made and indeed from an initial reading of the determination there was no indication the respondent even attended the appeal and therefore indicated that the judge had materially erred in law.