VA072362014

The Appellant in this appeal is the Secretary of State and so I shall refer to Mr Miah as the Claimant. His appeal to be allowed to enter the UK to visit his brother was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Atreya in a decision promulgated on 15 th October 2015. The Grounds of Appeal note that the appeal was restricted to residual grounds contained in Section 84(1)(b) and (c) of the 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act. The grounds state that there was a material misdirection of law by the judge who had not explained that additional dependency existed such as to engage Article 8.

Permission to appeal was granted and thus the appeal came before me on the above date.

For the Home Office reliance was placed on the grounds. The judge did not explain how the ties between the brothers exceeded the normal emotional ties. I was asked to set the decision aside and dismiss the Claimant's appeal.

For the Claimant Mr Rana submitted that the judge had produced a very careful decision. She had dealt with the relationship between the parties. She had noted that they had been separated for six years. She had found that there was family life. She had referred to and applied the appropriate case law namely Kaur (visit appeals/Article 8 ECHR) [2015] UKUT 487 . The judge had applied the letter of the law and there was no error.

The judge went on to note, correctly, that the Claimant did meet the terms of paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules. She then went on to apply the case of Kaur going on to allow the appeal on human rights grounds.