UI2024000323

                  What is in dispute in this case is whether there is family life between the appellant and the sponsor which goes beyond normal emotional ties. The appellant argues that his dependency on the sponsor means that the family life between himself and the sponsor does indeed satisfy this test. In setting aside the First-tier determination I indicated that certain facts found by the judge in the First-tier would nevertheless be preserved. I said:

                  Following the direction I made in the error of law decision, the sponsor filed and served a further witness statement dated 20 May 2024. He said in the statement that:

              It was not argued before me that the appellant could satisfy the immigration rules in relation to his application for leave to enter. The appellant failed under the eligibility criteria for the reasons set out in the refusal letter which the respondent continues to rely upon. The issue therefore was whether the appellant could demonstrate that there was a breach of article 8 in the respondent's decision.

              Firstly the appellant had to establish that there was family life between himself and his sponsor which went beyond normal emotional ties. Next that that family life was interfered with by the decision. The respondent must show that the decision is pursuant to a legitimate aim and finally that the interference complained of is proportionate to that legitimate aim, see Razgar [2004] UKHL 27 .

              In these circumstances I find that the appellant has been able to show, due to his dependency on the sponsor, that he and the sponsor have a family life which goes beyond normal emotional ties and which will be disproportionately interfered with by the respondent's decision to exclude the appellant from the United Kingdom. That being so I find the respondent's decision breaches article 8 and I therefore allow the appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision.