EA001672018

The appellant is a national of Kenya. She appealed to a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal against the Secretary of State's decision of 30 November 2017 refusing to grant her a permanent residence card.

The hearing before the judge was conducted on the papers, at the appellant's request. The judge said at paragraph 5 of his decision that he had no supportive evidence before him but that it was clear that the respondent had had sight of a number of documents when reaching the decision. Otherwise the judge had the letter of refusal and the grounds of appeal.

The judge considered Regulation 15 and Regulation 7 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 (hereafter the EEA Regulations) and concluded that there was a requirement of dependency as the appellant was over 21, and that on the basis of the evidence summarised in the refusal decision, it had not been shown that the appellant satisfied the requirements of the Regulations and as a consequence the appeal was dismissed.

In her grounds the appellant argued that she met the requirements of Regulation 15(1)(b), referring to a Home Office Guidance Note of 21 April 2017, as a dependent direct family member of her EEA national sponsor. It was also argued that the judge erred with regard to Article 8 of the ECHR which had not been considered, and there was also a reference to the need for a fair hearing in line with the guidance in AM (Sudan) .

Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the judge had not assessed the appellant's circumstances under Regulation 15(1)(b) and had not explained why the requirements of the Regulations were not met. The grounds were limited to that point, since as was said by the judge who granted permission, there was no error of law in failing to consider Article 8, and the grounds did not explain the relevance of AM (Sudan) .