OA142962013

After an initial refusal in the First-tier Tribunal the ECO was granted permission on 1 st August 2014 in the Upper Tribunal to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the Judge�s decision allowing the appeal on Article 8 grounds. Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede granted permission to appeal for the following reasons;

�Arguably Judge Boyes erred by failing to identify how the issues considered amounted to compelling circumstances in accordance with the principles in Gulshan (Article 8 � new rules � correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 , in particular when it was accepted that the appellant was in a position simply to make a fresh application supported by the required documentation.�

The matter accordingly came before me for an initial hearing to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error on a point of law.

The ECO refused the application under Immigration Rules on grounds of suitability because the claimant failed to declare two historic driving offences on his application form and on financial grounds. The application was further refused under paragraph 320(11) for overstaying and use of deception, as well as absconding. The ECO made no mention of, and gave no consideration to, Article 8 in refusing the application.

The ECM upheld the refusal for the reasons given by the ECO and considered Article 8 of the ECHR on the basis that the claimant could keep contact with his family and that there were no insurmountable obstacles to family life being continued by the claimant and sponsor in Cameroon together. The ECM found no interference caused to family life by the decision, or alternatively that such interference is justified and proportionate when weighed against the need to maintain immigration control.