VA029892014

The Secretary of State sought permission to appeal that decision. Permission was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lambert on 1 June 2015 on the basis that there was an absence of any mention in the brief decision of consideration whether the connections between the Claimant and the sponsor went beyond the normal emotional ties. It was also considered by Judge Lambert that there was arguably inadequate reasoning as to why the Entry Clearance Officer's decision was disproportionate given the availability of a fresh application.

Mr Chohan submitted that the case of Mostafa was not prescriptive. The submission was that Judge Bosarda did consider the facts and the circumstances and the fact that the ECO had gone beyond the normal remit by exploring determinations from previous hearings. There was a coherent consideration. Mostafa was promulgated after the Judge's decision and it did not seek to suggest that the relationship was excluded. There was very little opportunity for him to satisfy the requirements of a visit visa in the future.

Mr Mills submitted that there were a number of authorities going up to Strasbourg stating that more than normal ties were are required.

I have had regard to Mr Chohan's skeleton argument before coming to my conclusions in this appeal.

With effect from 25 June 2013, section 52 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 amended section 88A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that there is no right of appeal against the refusal of entry clearance in a family visitor case except on grounds alleging that the decision shows unlawful discrimination or is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.