IA266012014

Permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal V A Osborne on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge had erred in law. The grant of permission is confusing but it appears that the concern that Judge Osborne had was it was arguable that insufficient regard was had to the Immigration Service interview in determining whether the appellant was dependent on his uncle/ formed part of his household.

The matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law

Mr Biggs argued that the appeal could not succeed as the grant of permission to appeal should be seen as one solely based on the second ground which Mr Duffy had conceded was not an error of law as it went to the weight given to evidence which was properly a matter for the judge. He argued that the grant had been properly limited in accordance with Ferrer (limited appeal grounds; Alvi) [2012] UKUT 304 . It was very clear that Judge Osborne granting permission had refused to make a grant on the fourth ground concerning Regulation 17(4) of the EEA Regulations.

Mr Duffy raised the possibility that the decision of Judge Clapham was limited in allowing the appeal to a decision that there was dependency under Regulation 8 (2) of the EEA Regulations, and thus that there was no error as the decision had the meaning he argued for in any case.

Ultimately I find that the grant of permission to appeal was not limited, taking all matters into consideration. However I do not find that the First-tier Tribunal has erred in law.