OA167532012

The application argues that in relation to the requirements of paragraph 317 the judge misunderstood and consequently misinterpreted the evidence. It also argues that he failed to have regard to the best interests of the 13 year old daughter of the sponsor. That issue was not addressed in the determination; whether it was submitted to the judge is not immediately clear.

The respondent has also obtained permission to appeal the Article 8 ECHR determination. Granting permission on 13 June 2013, Judge Osborne wrote:

Although the judge was entitled to make his own findings on the basis of the evidence adduced, those findings have to be for adequate reasons. It is at least arguable that the judge has in this case on the particular issue of the sponsor�s mental condition failed to give adequate reasons why the appellant�s presence will have a very significant beneficial impact on the sponsor�s wellbeing. The judge finds that there are emotional ties between the appellant and her father but has failed to [identify] any likely improvement in his mental condition in the context of the medical evidence.

I was able to observe his extraordinary behaviour at the hearing. He is a man in torment. I found it very easy to agree with the comments in the report of Dr Goldwin that, �Koffi is the most distraught person I have seen, he is uncontrollably sad�.�

The second ground of appeal from the respondent is essentially a �reasons� challenge to the determination. The respondent submits that the judge failed to provide adequate reasons for finding that �more than emotional ties� exist between the sponsor and appellant given that there was no evidence of contact. No evidence had been produced to show why the sponsor could not travel to Ivory Coast in order to visit the appellant.