OA146372014

The Respondent is a national of Pakistan born on the 17 th January 1992. On the 14 th May 2015 her appeal against a refusal of entry clearance as a spouse was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Chambers. The Entry Clearance Officer in Islamabad now has permission to appeal against that decision [1] .

The Entry Clearance Officer has appealed against that decision. The grounds, in summary, place reliance on the decision of the Court of Appeal in SS (Congo ) and Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 387 . It is submitted that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is flawed for failure to consider whether Mr Ali could relocate to Pakistan (ie whether there was an interference at all) and for a failure to identify any exceptional features which would render this decision disproportionate.

Ms Faryl defended the decision on the basis that the Tribunal was correct to say that there was no public interest in refusing entry where it was accepted that the Sponsor is earning well over the required amount of money. It is accepted that this is a genuine marriage and that the parties want to live together in the UK. Their continued separation was difficult for them both and in those circumstances it was reasonable for the First-tier Tribunal to have allowed the appeal with reference to Article 8.

This was a case which turned, insofar as it fell to be considered under the Rules, on whether the application had been supported by the mandatory list of documents set out in Appendix FM-SE. It does not ever appear to have been in issue that the ECO was correct to refuse entry with reference to those provisions. The bank statements produced before the Tribunal fell well short of showing at least £18,600 paid in over the preceding year.

The Court of Appeal here finds that contrary to the submissions of Ms Faryl, and the findings of the First-tier Tribunal in this case, that there was a clear public interest in refusing entry clearance to applicants who cannot meet the requirements of Appendix FM-SE. Appeals of this nature can only be allowed where the Judge identifies "good reasons" [paragraph 53 SS ] to grant entry notwithstanding the failure under the Rules, or put another way, where "compelling circumstances" are found [paragraph 51].