VA067102014 & VA067112014

"Overall, unless an Appellant can show that there are individual interests at stake covered by Article 8 of a particularly pressing nature so as to give rise to a strong claim that compelling circumstances may exist to justify the grant of LTE outside the Rules (see SS (Congo) at [40] and [56]), he is exceedingly unlikely to succeed. That proposition must also hold good in visitor appeals."

It was submitted that the matter ought to be remitted to a new judge at the First-tier Tribunal so that he or she could deal with both the legal and factual disputes.

Mr Kotas said in reply that there was no "second bite of the cherry" because the matters were raised in the original ECO refusal. It would have been different if they had not been. I invited Mrs Price to reply. She said that the judge had said he is satisfied about intention. In reality this was a very minor thing which was being raised, that the refusal letters can raise all sorts of things, the judge did deal with matters adequately and that the Entry Clearance Officer's appeal ought to be dismissed.

"We contacted your spouse in the UK regarding his Sponsorship to you. However he could not answer basic questions about you such as your age or date of birth and referred to you as his fianc�e. I would expect your spouse of over two years to know this information about you and be clear on his relationship to you and also know your child. I do not find it credible that your spouse is not able to answer this information and I am not satisfied that your relationship is as you have claimed."