OA237472012

On 1 st August 2014 Designated Judge of the First-tier Tribunal McCarthy gave permission to the appellant to appeal against the decision of Designated Judge Coates and it is on that basis that the matter came before me in the Upper Tribunal.

The respondent entered a response on 13 th August 2014. It was submitted that, whilst it may have been an error for the judge to have had regard to the appellant’s age at the date of hearing, the judge was entitled to find that the Immigration Rules could not be met as the appellant lived with her father in Ethiopia and that she was not experiencing problems with her father on the basis claimed.

Mr McVeety confirmed that the respondent relied on the Rule 24 response. He emphasised that, as it had been agreed at the hearing that the appellant could not benefit from the provisions of paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules as a dependent child, he could not see how she could succeed on an Article 8 claim. This was particularly so since the appellant had not lived with her mother since she was 7 years of age. These were factors which applied whether the judge had looked at human rights issues at the date of decision or hearing.

After hearing submissions I indicated that I would reserve my decision. It was also agreed that, if I were to find that there was a material error in the decision, I could continue to re-make the decision based upon the submissions made on Article 8 issues set out in the light of the negative findings of fact of the First-tier Tribunal. However, for the reasons I give below, I am not satisfied that the decision shows an arguable error on appoint of law.

The judge made sound findings about the credibility of the appellant’s claims which are as relevant to the situation at the date of decision as they would have been at the date of hearing.