OA284102011

On 20 February 2012, the Entry Clearance Manager (ECM) reviewed the ECO�s decision. On the basis of the documents submitted to the ECM, he was satisfied that the appellant and sponsor were related as claimed, namely niece and aunt respectively and that, therefore, the requirement in para 319X(i) was met. Nevertheless, the ECM upheld the refusal under para 319X(ii).

The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. She did not request an oral hearing. In a determination promulgated on 18 June 2012, Judge Devlin dismissed the appellant�s appeal. First, he was not satisfied on the evidence before him that the requirement in para 319X(ii) of the Rules was met. Further, the Judge found that the refusal of entry clearance was not a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.

The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. On 22 October 2013, the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Keane) granted the appellant permission to appeal on the basis that the Judge had made an error in stating the appellant�s age and that this was relevant to his assessment of proportionality under Article 8. Thus, the appeal came before me.

At the hearing, the appellant was not legally represented but the sponsor, the appellant�s aunt, attended the hearing and spoke on behalf of the appellant.

Ms Mugadzu relied on the fact that the appellant�s father had died on 4 October 2012 and she drew my attention to his death certificate. She also relied on the fact that her mother was 62 years of age; she was getting old; and she had problems with her health which meant that sometimes it was difficult for her to look after the appellant. The sponsor also referred me to the fact that the appellant had been raped on the way from school in November 2013 and, again, she referred me to supporting documentation in the file.