IA171112014

The appellant appeals to the Upper Tribunal from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Lucas sitting at Taylor House on 3 November 2014) dismissing her appeal against the decision by the Secretary of State to refuse to grant her leave to remain on Article 8 grounds outside the Rules, and to give directions for her removal from the United Kingdom under Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction, and I do not consider that the appellant should be accorded anonymity for these proceedings in the Upper Tribunal.

On 16 February 2014, the appellant�s solicitors wrote a follow up letter to the Home Office in which they said they had regrettably misunderstood their client�s case. It now transpired that in fact the appellant and her partner had been living together in excess of two continuous years, since 2009.

The solicitors went on to submit that the appellant met the requirements of paragraph EX.1 of Appendix FM. It would be unreasonable to expect her partner to leave the UK and lose the rights and entitlements afforded to him under his (recent) grant of ILR. Furthermore, he would lose his employment as a bus driver and his pension entitlements etc. There were no sufficient factors which justified requiring him to leave the UK and to discontinue the enjoyment of his family life in the UK with the appellant. The correct test for insurmountable obstacles was one of �reasonableness�.

On 24 March 2014 the Secretary of State gave her reasons for making directions for the appellant�s removal to Uganda. She met the suitability requirements under Appendix FM, but not the eligibility requirements. She had not sought to raise the issue of a relationship of Mr Kaddu until she was faced with the imminent prospect of being removed from the UK.

The respondent went on to review the documents which had been provided in support of the claim that the couple had cohabited since 2009. While the appellant and Mr Kaddu may have enjoyed some form of relationship, it was not accepted they were partners as defined for the purposes of the Immigration Rules. It had not been shown to the relevant standard that their relationship was one which was long term, committed and akin to marriage. So the appellant had not satisfied the eligibility requirement of Appendix FM of the Rules with regard to her relationship with Mr Kaddu.