IA024562014

The appellant appeals to the Upper Tribunal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing her appeal against a decision to refuse her application for leave to remain on the grounds that removal would not place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998, and to give directions for her removal to Jamaica under Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction, and I do not consider that the appellant should be accorded anonymity for these proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.

Her husband, Anthony John Burton, gave evidence. He said he was not ready to go with the appellant to Jamaica, and he might lose his council flat if he went even for a short period. He had had various jobs since their marriage, but his last proper job was two years ago. His rent was paid by housing benefit.

Judge Markham David found that the marriage was subsisting and the parties intended to live permanently with each other. He found against the appellant on the issue of proportionality. In his view, there were no circumstances in the case which could possibly be described as truly exceptional. The appellant had failed to observe the Rules:

It may be the Secretary of State was feeling particularly charitable, he might decide it was not necessary for the appellant to return to Jamaica to apply for leave to enter in accordance with the Rules. However, that is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. It is quite clear that in this case, as in the majority of cases, the maintenance of effective policy of immigration control outweighs all over factors.

On 5 June 2006 the appellant sought reconsideration by way of a High Court review, and on 19 June 2006 this was refused. She became appeal rights exhausted on 29 June 2006.