UI2024000987

       The appellant is a Pakistani national ,born in June 1991. She came to the United Kingdom in October 2016 with limited leave as the wife of a British citizen,Mr Adil Hussain. We will refer to him hereinafter as her sponsor . She subsequently applied for indefinite leave to remain ; this was refused in November 2022 because the financial threshold of £18,600 in the immigration rules was not met.

       Her appeal was heard by FtT Tribunal Judge Hena on 24 October 2023 and dismissed. It was accepted on behalf of the appellant that the financial eligibility requirements could not be met. The extant issue was EX 1 of appendix FM. and whether there were insurmountable obstacles to family life with her partner continuing outside the United Kingdom .It was submitted it would be disproportionate under article 8 to remove her to Pakistan.

       The judge considered rule 276 ADE(vi) and the appellant's private life. The test of significant obstacles to her integration back into Pakistan was like insurmountable obstacles under EX 1. The evidence indicated a family network for the appellant and her husband, and she has siblings there and she is related to her in-laws. The judge did not accept if she returned alone, she would be alienated. There would be family protection and gossip about the relationship would not reach the very significant obstacles threshold .

       In terms of article 8 and exceptional circumstances, the judge pointed out the immigration rules were not met, and this was a significant factor when considering the proportionality test and the public interest in immigration control. Reference was made to section 117 B. The judge concluded her sponsor could relocate with her or alternatively, a future application could be made when the financial requirements were met.

       Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by DUT Judge Lewis. It was arguable the assessment should have considered their joint earnings. It was also arguable there was no evaluation of the nature and quality of family life and private life, particularly that of the sponsor, in the United Kingdom. The judge noted there had been no challenge to the findings in respect of EX1 or in relation to paragraph 276 ADE(1).