UI2023002899

      The appellant is a citizen of India who born on 30 April 1992. He entered the United Kingdom on a visit visa in 2010 and overstayed. His application to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his private life was refused by the Secretary of State by a decision dated 17 November 2022. The First-tier Tribunal, in a decision promulgated on 23 June 2023, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.

      The appellant argues that, as a consequence of his mental health problems (it was agreed by both parties that he has learning difficulties) there exist very significant obstacles to his integration in India. The appellant complains that the judge, although she accepted that the appellant has both mental and physical disabilities, did not mention the appellant's medical evidence at all in her decision.

      The Secretary of State in her Rule 24 letter argues that it was 'clear that the decision of the FTT was not made on the basis that the medical evidence was not accepted but that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that suitable arrangements could not be made for his care and on the basis that the sponsors could return with him either to make arrangements for him, or to look after him themselves in India.'

      In his oral submissions, Mr Winter submitted that the failure of the judge to engage with the medical evidence was a material error of law.

      I find that Ground 1 is without merit. I do not find that, having accepted the appellant's mental health difficulties as a fact, the judge was required to assess the medical evidence in detail give that, as the Secretary of State submissions, the issue was whether suitable arrangements for the appellant's care could be made in India. Given the judge's findings, in particular that summarised at [6] (v) below, there was no need whatever for the judge to analyse medical evidence which added nothing to the issues to be determined by the Tribunal.