OA234802012

On 14 October 2013, I sat to re-make the decision in the appellant�s appeal, as regards Article 8 of the ECHR. This followed the setting aside in September 2013 of the determination of the First-tier Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant�s appeal against the respondent�s decision to refuse her entry clearance as a dependent relative. I set out below the decision on error of law and subsequent set aside, made by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Murray:-

�1. The appellant in these proceedings is the Entry Clearance Officer but for convenience I shall now refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.

The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka born on 1 December 1928. She appealed against the decision of the respondent refusing her entry clearance to the UK as an adult dependent relative under Appendix FM of HC395 as amended. The date of the refusal was 17 October 2012. The appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Hawden-Beale on 15 May 2013 and dismissed under the Immigration Rules in a determination promulgated on 28 May 2013.

An application for permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Macdonald. The grounds of application state that the judge erred in law by treating the application as having been made after 9 July 2012, the judge erred in his findings that the appellant did not meet the requirements of the Rules and erred in his assessment under Article 8 ECHR.

There is a response to the grounds of appeal by the respondent under Rule 24, being that the First-tier Tribunal directed itself appropriately and gave full reasons for concluding that the application was not validly made prior to the rule change and finding that Appendix FM now applies. The response accepts that the judge�s finding on Article 8 is inadequate but states that this is immaterial in light of his findings regarding Appendix FM and states that as the judge found that the appeal failed under the Rules no separate assessment for Article 8 was required.