IA231802014 & IA231862014

The Judge dismissed the appeals under the EEA Regulations and at paragraph 31 of his determination gave his reasons as follows for not considering any Article 8 issues:

The grounds of appeal do not raise any article 8 issues. In AS and SS (India) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 229 the Court of Appeal held that the Judge had to address the case that was in fact presented to him. In MB (Article 8 � near miss) Pakistan [2010] UKUT 282 (IAC) Article 8 was not mentioned in the Notice of Appeal or in the grounds, nor was it raised in a section 120 notice. Sedley LJ indicated that, as the issue was not raised before the Judge, he could not be said to have made an error of law.

The appellants were granted permission to appeal against the decision of the Judge by First-tier Tribunal Judge Kamara on 2 nd February 2015 for the following reasons:

The lengthy handwritten grounds seeking permission argue, essentially, that the judge failed to apply the law, failed to take relevant evidence into consideration and reached a conclusion against the weight of the evidence. Otherwise, the grounds restate the fact of the case. As the appellants appear to be unrepresented I have read the decision carefully to see if it contains any obvious errors of law.

In an otherwise well reasoned determination the judge arguably erred in law in concluding that the grounds of appeal did not raise Article 8 issues, given the contents of the grounds of appeal received by the IAC on 13 th August 2014 which made a number of references to Article 8 jurisprudence. Given the judge�s clear findings on the credibility of the appellants and their witness, permission is refused in relation to the challenge to the judge�s finding that the appellants were not dependent upon the sponsor or vice versa.