OA059852013

The appellant appeals to the Upper Tribunal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the decision by an Entry Clearance Officer to refuse him entry clearance as the partner of a person present and settled here. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity order, and I do not consider that such an order is warranted for these proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.

The appellant is a national of India, whose date of birth is 7 October 1944. On 23 January 2013 an Entry Clearance Officer in New Delhi gave his reasons for refusing the appellant�s application for entry clearance as a partner under Appendix FM of the Rules. He advanced three grounds of objection.

The first was that as evidence of his marriage to his sponsor in 1960, he had enclosed any refusal certificate confirming that the marriage was solemnised on 3 February 1960, but as he was not of the prescribed age at the time of his marriage, his application to register it under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was refused. So the Entry Clearance Officer was not satisfied that the marriage to the sponsor was legally valid.

On 21 May 2014 First-tier Tribunal Judge Shimmin granted the appellant permission to appeal as it appeared that the judge might not have taken full account of all the evidence when considering the adjournment and the decision.

On 9 June 2014 Mr John Parkinson of the Specialist Appeals Team settled a Rule 24 response on behalf of the respondent. There was no adequate medical evidence to demonstrate that the sponsor was unable to attend. Medical evidence cited did not support the assertion that the sponsor was physically unable to appear at the hearing, despite being able to travel to India. The judge did not procedurally err in proceeding with the hearing. The judge was entitled to apply the weight that she chose to the evidence before her. The grounds did not disclose any material error of law.