IA101242014 & IA101232014

The appellants, who are mother and daughter, are nationals of Trinidad and Tobago born on 8 February 1980 and 25 May 2008 respectively and have been granted anonymity. They appealed against the decisions of the respondent dated 7 February 2014 to refuse them leave to remain in United Kingdom and grant them discretionary leave based upon the first appellant�s private and family life pursuant to s 55 of the Boarders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Judge AW Khan dismissed both appellants� appeals.

The Judge considered that the appellants did not meet the requirements of Appendix FM and paragraph 276 ADE of the Immigration Rules because the appellant has not demonstrated that she has no ties including social, cultural family with the country to which she would have to go if required when she has to leave the United Kingdom.

The Judge then went on to consider whether there are compelling circumstances not sufficiently recognised under the Rules in order for him to consider the Article 8 claim. The judge noted that the appellant has been an over stayer in the United Kingdom for over three years. Her immigration status was precarious. The second appellant goes to school and her school reports show she is making progress. There is no reason why the appellant�s child who is six years of age cannot return to Trinidad which is an English-speaking country with her mother.

The Judge stated �In reality, there is no arguable or realistic claim that under Article 8 in respect of private life either of the first appellant of the second appellant outside the Rules. As to family life there would be no breach of family life because both the first appellant and the second appellant would be removed to Trinidad as one family unit and family life can continue between mother and daughter as it has done in the United Kingdom. There would be no change in family life albeit it would be exercised in a different country�.

The child is not a British citizen and therefore not a qualifying child under section 117B(a). She is also not lived continuously in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of seven years or by virtue of the definition of a qualifying child under the section 117D therefore section 117B(6) does not apply. The appellant�s removal to Trinidad and Tobago would not be a disproportionate interference with both appellants� rights under Article 8.