OA141662013 & OA141682013

The Secretary of State sought permission to appeal on the basis of the grounds of the 16 th of June 2014. In the grounds it was submitted that there was no evidence that the Appellants had suffered the historic injustice and that the Judge had failed to provide adequate reasons when considering proportionality. Permission was granted on the 26 th of June 2014.

The situation of the children of former Ghurka soldiers now living in the UK is slightly different from others as there is the issue of the historic injustice that prevented Ghurka soldiers from Nepal from settling in the UK following their discharge from the army. The main cases that consider the position of adult children abroad who may have benefitted from the new policy had it applied earlier are Ghishing (family life � adults � Ghurka policy) [2012] UKUT 160 (IAC) and Ghishing and others (Ghurkas/BOCs: historic wrong; weight) [2013] UKUT 567 (IAC) .

From Ghishing [2013] it is now the case that where it is found that article 8 is engaged and but for the historic wrong the family would have settled in the UK that will ordinarily determine the outcome of the proportionality exercise in the Appellant's favour if the sole point raised by the Secretary of State is the public interest in maintaining immigration policy. A bad immigration history and/or criminal behaviour could still outweigh the factors on the Appellant's side of the equation.

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 and I make no order.