OA014132013

The Entry Clearance Officer appealed the decision and at a hearing on 6 November 2013 a panel comprising Mr Justice Cranston and I found errors of law in the determination and by our decision promulgated on 27 November 2013 gave reasons for so finding, set aside the decision and listed the appeal for a resumed hearing before me.

Mr Jesurum did not choose to call oral evidence. Submissions were made by both representatives.

The background is set out in the error of law determination but what we said there is largely repeated here with some additions.

The father is severely sight impaired (blind). Neither he nor his wife works. He receives pension credit; in 2011 it was �158.82 a week. He receives an attendance allowance, which in 2012 was �51.85 a week. He rents a ground floor flat in Aldershot. His wife supports him within the house but she does not speak English and is illiterate. The wife is reliant on help to do basic things such as shopping and assisting her husband to attend hospital appointments. The two younger children were students at the time of the proceedings before the judge.

The Entry Clearance Officer said that he could see nothing which would lead him to conclude that there were particular bonds in the appellant�s case leading to the engagement of Article 8. There was nothing to indicate that the appellant was not capable of living an adult life. It was his father�s decision to split the family in the full knowledge that the appellant would not automatically qualify to join them. The maintenance and accommodation requirements of the Rules were intended to maintain effective immigration control.