IA042342014

The appellant is a citizen of Nepal, born on 22 December 1989. She applied on 9 September 2013 for leave to remain on Article 8 grounds which was refused by the respondent on 31 December 2013 with an accompanying decision to remove the appellant by way of directions under Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

The appellant�s appeal against the respondent�s refusal was dismissed by Judge P-J White (the judge) in a determination promulgated on 23 July 2014. He found that the appellant was not at risk of any breach of her rights under Article 3 raised before him at the hearing, whether from threatened violence on the part of her father or from more generalised difficulties of a societal nature. As regards Article 8, the judge found she could not satisfy paragraph 276ADE bearing in mind Ogundimu (Article 8 � new Rules) Nigeria [2013] UKUT 60 (IAC) and that Article 8 outside the Rules was not engaged.

The grounds claim the judge materially erred because he was obliged to carry out an Article 8 assessment outside the Rules. He misunderstood the approach required. See Gulshan (Article 8 � new Rules � correct approach) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 640 (IAC) and Nagre [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) . The grounds argue that a full Article 8 analysis outside the Rules was required because of the appellant�s circumstances but in any event, the judge erred because he found that the respondent�s decision was not such as to engage Article 8, failing to take account of the test in AG (Eritrea) [2007] EWCA Civ 801 .

As regards Article 3, the judge failed to make adequate findings with regard to the appellant�s evidence against which to consider the expert report. Further, that he failed to take the appellant�s mental health issues into account. See [12]-[13] of the appellant�s statement.

The grounds were renewed to the Upper Tribunal maintaining that the judge misdirected himself as to the legal test in determining whether an assessment of Article 8 outside the Rules was required. See [128] of MM [2014] EWCA CIV 985 . It was claimed that Judge Ford failed to give adequate reasons as to why the arguments at [16]-[18] of the grounds were rejected and that in any event there were insufficient findings of fact in the judge�s determination.