OA086392015

This is an appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge James promulgated on 21 st June 2016 following a hearing at Birmingham on 8 th June 2016. In the determination, the judge dismissed the appeal of the Appellant, whereupon the Appellant subsequently applied for, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matter comes before me.

This is a short form judgment and the relevant facts in the documentary material are set out in the judgment under appeal.

Second, the judge failed to consider the "best interests" of the Appellant child in his assessment of Article 8. Third, the judge failed to consider the "positive obligation" imposed by Article 8 to promote family life. This being so, the judge's assessment of Article 8 was inadequate.

Finally, at paragraph 17 the judge specifically noted a court order giving custody of the Appellant child to the sponsoring father in the UK, and whilst the judge recognised (at paragraph 18) that the "best interest" of the Appellant child had to be taken into account, nowhere in the determination does the judge make a formal assessment as to where those best interests actually lie.

Fourth, as far as the "best interests" of the child was concerned there is no reference at all in the determination to an appraisal of this (see paragraph 27). Moreover, the conclusion that Section 55 of the BCIA 2009 does not expressly apply to entry clearance decisions was erroneous because what the case of T (Jamaica) established was that the spirit of Section 55 should be taken into account.