VA122622013

The respondent, whom I shall refer to as the appellant as he was in the proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal, is a citizen of India and his date of birth is 5 August 1977. He made an application to visit the UK in order to visit is aunt who was not in good health. His application was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer in Mumbai on 20 June 2013.

The appellant indicated that he intended to stay in the UK for a period of two months. He works in India as a carpenter. His cousin, Naina Chauhan, would sponsor him. She intended to maintain and accommodate him during his visit. With the appellant's application he submitted, amongst other documents, a letter dated 2 April 2013, from the hospital, indicating that his aunt had �advanced renal insufficiency�.

The application was refused by the ECO under the Immigration Rules (paragraph 41(i), (ii), (iii) and (vi)). The appellant appealed and his appeal was allowed under article 8 by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Trevaskis. The Judge made the following findings at [10] of the determination:

The appeal was allowed by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Trevaskis having determined the matter on the papers on 11 November 2014 in accordance with the appellant's wishes. There was no statutory appeal under the Immigration Rules, but the grounds of appeal before the First-tier Tribunal raised article 8 of the 1950 Convention on Human Rights. Permission to appeal was granted to the Secretary of State by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Molloy in a decision of 22 May 2014. Thus the matter came before me.

The grounds seeking permission to appeal argue that there is no family life in the sense of Kugathas v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 31 . There is no evidence that an inability to visit would have a significant impact on other family members as found by the Judge. There were no findings under the Immigration Rules and the decision was not in accordance with Gulshan (Article 8 � new Rules � correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 (IAC) .