OA084102013

This is an appeal by the appellant against the determination promulgated on 11 December 2013 of First-tier Tribunal Judge Ford which refused the appellant�s appeal against the respondent�s decision of 26 February 2013 to refuse entry clearance as a spouse.

There is no dispute that the substantive Immigration Rules could not be met. The required income of �18,600 set out in paragraph E-ECP.3.3 of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules had not been shown.

The sole ground of appeal here is that Judge Ford erred in failing to allow the appeal under Article 8. It was argued that he did not apply correctly the ratio of MM v SSHD [2013] EWHC 1900 (Admin) . Mr Chaudhury argued that MM was authority for the appeal being allowed by the First-tier Tribunal where it was accepted at [15] that the sponsor earned �15,096.

Mr Chaudhury�s grounds and submissions on MM did not have merit. Mr Chaudhury argues that the ratio of MM is that the income threshold in spouse cases should be taken to be �13,124 per year (not �18,600 as required by the Immigration Rules) and the appeal allowed under Article 8 if an income of �13,124 is available to support the appellant.

That is not the ratio of MM . As Judge Ford stated correctly at [6] and [17], MM indicated that although the income threshold set by the Immigration Rules could be found to amount to a disproportionate interference with the family life of a British national and a non-British national spouse but this would depend on the circumstances in each case. The income threshold set by the Immigration Rules was expressly not quashed; see [121].