VA114432013 & VA114462013

The appellants, nationals of Albania, appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) of 21 June 2013 to refuse their applications for entry clearance as a visitor to visit their daughter and her husband and child in the UK. The appellants� son-in-law appeared as the sponsor on behalf of the appellants at the hearing in the First-tier Tribunal and before me in the Upper Tribunal. Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Beg dismissed the appeal. The appellants now appeal with permission to this Tribunal.

The ECO refused the applications under paragraph 41 (i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) of the Immigration Rules. Paragraph 41 (i) and (ii) relate to the requirements that the appellants are genuine visitors and their intention to leave the UK at the end of the visit. Paragraph 41 (vi) and (vii) require that the appellants can meet the cost of their onward journey and that they will be adequately maintained in the UK.

As she accepted the financial evidence relating to the sponsor the Judge accepted that the appellants met the requirements of paragraphs 41 (vi) and (vii) [9]. That finding is not challenged. However the Judge did not accept that the appellants are genuine visitors who will leave the UK at the end of the family visit.

It was accepted by Mr Whitwell at the hearing before me that the First-tier Tribunal Judge made a number of factual errors in the determination. The issue was therefore whether these errors are material to the decision.

The second error identified was at paragraph 10 where the Judge said that the first appellant had a pension but the second appellant had no independent income of her own. This is wrong as there was evidence before the Judge that the second appellant also receives a pension. Mr Whitwell accepted that the Judge made a mistake here too but submitted that it was not material.