IA005952014

The appellant, a national of Ghana, appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to issue him with a residence card as confirmation of a right to reside in the UK as the spouse of an EEA national. First-tier Tribunal Judge M A Khan dismissed the appeal and the appellant now appeals with permission to this Tribunal.

The appellant claims to have married Charlotte Gyimah (the sponsor), a Dutch national, by proxy marriage in Ghana on 20 March 2013. The respondent did not accept the marriage certificate as proving that the appellant is married to the EEA national because it had not been shown that the customary marriage was undertaken in accordance with Ghanaian law. The respondent further decided that the appellant had not established that he and his spouse were in a durable relationship so as to satisfy regulation 8 (5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (the EEA Regulations).

The grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal do not challenge the Judge�s findings in relation to the validity of the customary marriage. The grounds of appeal challenge the Judge�s findings in relation to credibility and that the appellant is not in a durable relationship. It is contended that the Judge inaccurately recorded some of the oral evidence and failed to take account of all of the oral and documentary evidence.

Ms Tetteh submitted that the Judge was shown the sponsor�s ring and he concluded that it was not gold even though it is gold coloured. Ms Tetteh submitted that the sponsor said in cross-examination that the appellant had gone to see a friend on the Saturday before the hearing and she said that he always goes to see Afifra so it could have been inferred that this include the previous Saturday. Ms Tetteh submitted that the Judge should have taken the documentary evidence into account. She referred to TV licensing documentation and a Halifax bank statement in the appellant's name.

Mr Whitwell submitted that the Judge did not take these matters in isolation. He submitted that the Judge took a range of factors into consideration including the discrepancies in oral evidence and the lack of documentary evidence. He submitted that there was insufficient documentary evidence before the Judge and that he was entitled to reach the conclusions he did on the basis of all of the evidence.