OA174722013

The Appellant born on 20 th July 1990 is a citizen of Bangladesh. The Appellant was represented by Mr Brown of Counsel. The Respondent was represented by Miss Johnstone, a Home Office Presenting Officer .

The Appellant had made application for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as the spouse of Mr Fahem under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. The Respondent had refused that application for a number of reasons as outlined in paragraph 3 of the judge�s determination. The Appellant had appealed that decision and her appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge McAll sitting at Manchester on 4 th July 2014. The judge had dismissed the appeal under both the Immigration Rules and on human rights grounds.

The Appellant had made application to appeal that decision and that application was initially refused by Designated First-tier Tribunal Judge Murray on 25 th September 2014. The judge gave full reasons for his decision to refuse. The application was then repeated and permission to appeal was granted by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce on 20 th February 2015 on the basis that it was arguable the Tribunal had failed to consider the nature of the marriage within an appropriate cultural context under GA [2006] UKAIT 00046 .

The Respondent had opposed the appeal but somewhat unusually within the response letter had themselves pointed to what was said to be two separate errors of law made by the judge in terms of his consideration of an English language certificate and maintenance generally. In many ways therefore this was an application made by both parties asserting an error of law had been made by the judge. Directions were set for me consider firstly whether an error of law had been made and the matter comes before me in accordance with those directions.

Mr Brown submitted in terms of the Grounds of Appeal that the judge had failed to consider the cultural background of the parties in accordance with the guidance in GA Ghana [2006] and Goudey [2012] UKUT 41 . It was submitted that the demonstration of contact was sufficient to show that the marriage was subsisting.