OA007892013 & ors

An anonymity order applies to this case. The appellants will be called BK, RA and FA. They appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Widdup dated 9 January 2014 in which he dismissed their appeals against the Entry Clearance Officer in Dhaka�s refusal of their applications to enter the United Kingdom on 22 October 2012.

The appeal, which has been attractively put by Mr Iqbal, is essentially founded on the proposition that the learned Immigration Judge�s treatment of the evidence which led him to conclude that the sponsor had failed to prove that he had �sole responsibility� for the appellants was not made out.

�32. These appeals are wholly without merit. That is not meant as a criticism of KM, still less of the appellants themselves, but I find that there is no evidence whatsoever which could lead me to find that KM has had sole responsibility for the appellants at any time since 1995.�

It is not surprising that the learned Immigration Judge came to that conclusion. He asked KM how he said he had sole responsibility for the children and quotes KM�s answer in paragraph 26 of the decision: �He said that their mother had had responsibility and that he had helped financially.�

This answer alone sells the lie to KM�s case because out of his own mouth he effectively said that it was not him but the mother who had responsibility for the appellants. Mr Iqbal sought to suggest, doing his best for his client, that KM may have misunderstood the meaning of �responsibility�. We do not see how there could be any scope for misunderstanding of such a simple concept, still less one which was central to the appeal before the learned Immigration Judge.