IA270562014

The Appellant appealed with permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ransley on 28 May 2015 against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cameron who had dismissed the Appellant's appeal under Appendix FM as the spouse of British Citizen and on human rights (Article 8 ECHR family life) grounds against her removal in a decision and reasons promulgated on 25 March 2015.

The Appellant is a national of Brazil , born on 12 March 1987. The Appellant had entered the United Kingdom on 28 November 2010 claiming to be the spouse of man she had divorced on 16 September 2010. She had admitted to a previous overstay in 2006. She did not meet the suitability requirements of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. She retained her ties to Brazil. The judge found that family life could reasonably be enjoyed in Brazil and that the Appellant's removal was proportionate. Alternatively she could return to Brazil and seek entry clearance from there.

Permission to appeal was granted because it was considered that it was arguable that the judge had erred (a) by failing to apply the doctrine of "issue estoppels" when considering the Respondent 's grant of leave to enter to the Appellant in 2010 notwithstanding her overstay in 2006 and (b) in his assessment of the Article 8 ECHR claim when finding that the Appellant did not meet the suitability requirements yet had been treated as "suitable" by the Entry Clearance Officer.

Standard directions were made by the tribunal. A rule 24 notice dated 12 June 2015 had been filed on the Respondent's behalf, opposing the onwards appeal.

Ms Fijwala for the Respondent relied on the rule 24 notice. "Issue estoppel" did not exist in immigration law. There had been persistent disregard of the Immigration Rules by the Appellant. Her immigration status was correctly described as "precarious", as explained in AM (S 117B) Malawi [2015] UKUT 260 (IAC) . The Appellant was simply expressing disagreement with the decision. The decision and reasons should stand.