UI2023004739 & Ors

    The Appellants are a mother and her 2 sons who challenge the decision of Judge Hena of the 6 th of September 2023 in which she dismissed their appeals against the refusal by the Respondent to grant them leave to remain in the UK. The original applications, made on the basis of their private life, were made on the 14 th of August 2021 and refused for the reasons given in the Refusal Letter of the 11 th of October 2022.

    The Appellants are the family members of a Bangladeshi diplomat, they entered the UK in April 2015 and by virtue of their status were exempt from immigration control, that exemption came to an end in April 2021. The applications were refused as it was not accepted that they could meet paragraph 276ADE, there being no very significant obstacles to reintegration to Bangladesh and the second and third Appellants had not spent sufficient time in the UK, having been here for only 6 years.

    Judge Hena dismissed the appeals setting out her findings in paragraphs 15 to 34 of her decision. The Appellants' circumstances and the basis of their case were summarised in paragraph 15 and Mr Voke's submissions in paragraph 16 which concluded with the point that the Appellants have lived where directed in accordance with their father's work and a return to Bangladesh to apply to study in the UK would entail disruption.

    Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was sought on a number of grounds but permission was only granted on the first 2 raised - the assessment under section 117B with regard to English language, financial independence and leave and the assessment of unjustifiably harsh consequences under the Immigration Rules and proportionality.

    For the Appellants Mr Vokes argued that the assessment under section 117B was flawed and there was no structured balance sheet approach. They had built up their private and family life in the UK, the Second and Third Appellant had been educated here and they had entered as visa exempt nationals, not as students with limited leave and precariousness did not apply. The Immigration Rules applied once they ceased to be visa exempt. They had lived where their father had been posted and their education had followed that.