UI2023004567

The Appellant appealed with permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Seelhoff on 16 October 2023, against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Meah who had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant against the refusal of her Article 8 ECHR human rights claim. The decision and reasons was promulgated on 30 August 2023.

The Appellant is a national of Bangladesh, born on 10 January 1967 . She entered the United Kingdom on 24 March 2021 as a visitor, with leave to enter until 24 September 2021.` On 1 September 2021 the Appellant applied for permission to stay on Article 8 ECHR grounds, which the Respondent refused on 20 September 2022.

The Appellant had various health conditions which she had suffered from for a number of years in Bangladesh before coming to visit the United Kingdom, such as her depression and anxiety following her husband's death in 2013. The Appellant had managed these conditions whilst living in Bangladesh for many years. There was no evidence that they had become more acute or heightened since she came to the United Kingdom, to the extent that treatment would not be available or inaccessible in Bangladesh.

First-tier Tribunal Judge Seelhoff considered that it was arguable that Judge Meah had erred in his treatment of the medical evidence. The issue of the independence of the interpreter used by the doctor had not been raised by the Respondent meaning that the Appellant had not been given the opportunity to answer the point. As to the assertion in the grounds that the judge had entered the arena with his questioning of witnesses, that was not necessarily supported by the examples cited, so that it might be necessary to review the record of proceedings.

Mr Clarke for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant's grounds had not been made out and no error of law had been shown. The Respondent's review had been clear about the alleged domestic violence, the supporting evidence for which the judge had considered in accordance with authorities such as JL (medical reports - credibility) China [2013] UKUT 145 (IAC) . The judge had been entitled to find that the report simply recited the Appellant's story, and added nothing to her case. The report was not a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.