VA124972013

Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Traynor dismissed this appeal against refusal of entry clearance as a family visitor. The refusal decision was dated 27 June 2013. The Appellant is a national of Nigeria, who applied for entry clearance to visit her sister, Joyce, and her sister�s husband, Joseph Brown, who are both settled in the UK.

The second ground contended that the judge had applied requirements which were not in the Immigration Rules. At paragraph 33 of the determination the judge recorded that there was no evidence of the Appellant�s husband either consenting to her visit or supporting her application. It was pointed out that there was no requirement in paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules for such evidence.

The fourth ground of the application contended that the judge had unreasonable expectations of the evidence from the Appellant. The judge appeared to have required that the Appellant should produce direct evidence about a number of issues while failing to acknowledge that there was no mechanism by which an overseas Appellant could give oral evidence to the Tribunal. Reference was made to paragraphs 38, 39 and 43 of the determination. It was not explained what the judge expected the Appellant to do by way of providing direct evidence.

Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the judge arguably erred in law in finding that there was �an absence of any information� concerning the Appellant�s relationship with her husband. By making this finding the judge had arguably failed to refer to the evidence of the Sponsor, Joseph Brown, and to state whether this evidence was accepted or not. In relation to the Appellant�s finances, the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal appeared arguably to have applied a standard of proof more appropriate to an application for settlement or at least something more than a family visit.

It was further contended in the notice that the judge was entitled to be concerned about the lack of direct evidence from the Appellant confirming payments into her bank account. The judge was not bound to accept the Sponsor�s evidence on this matter. The Sponsor�s credibility was not necessarily relevant to the Appellant�s credibility and the judge was entitled to conclude as he did regarding the evidence of the Appellant�s finances.