OA053002015

The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Turquet dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision to refuse entry clearance as the partner of a British citizen pursuant to Appendix FM and Article 8 ECHR. The Appellant appealed against that decision and was granted permission to appeal by Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede. The grounds upon which permission was granted may be summarised as follows:

"There is arguable merit in the assertion in the grounds that the judge arguably failed to take account of evidence showing that the telephone number called by the Sponsor was the Appellant and thus arguably erred in her assessment of the contact between the Appellant and Sponsor, which then arguably infected her findings on the relationship between the Appellant and Sponsor. The grounds are arguable."

I was provided with a Rule 24 response from the Respondent which was considered by all parties before the hearing commenced.

At the close of submissions, I indicated I found an error of law such that the decision should be set aside, but that my reasons would follow, which I shall now give.

The grounds are somewhat verbose in their nature and craftsmanship but in essence the complaint boils down to the lawfulness of the First-tier Tribunal's assessment of whether the relationship between the Appellant and Sponsor was genuine and subsisting. The Appellant's representatives rely upon the authority of Goudey (subsisting marriage - evidence) Sudan [2012] UKUT 41 (IAC) which confirms as follows in the first three headnotes: