OA135262013

This matter comes before us for consideration as to whether or not there is a material error of law in the determination promulgated by the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Ghani) on 2 nd April 2014 in which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal against a refusal dated 15 th May 2013 by an Entry Clearance Officer of an application as an adult dependent relative under Appendix FM of the Immigration rules.

The respondent was not satisfied that the appellant met the requirements of the rules because she did not meet the criteria for long term care as a result of age, illness, or disability.

The respondent was not satisfied that the appellant established family life under Article 8 given that she studied in India and spent only vacations with her family in the UK.

There was no dispute that the appellant was unable to meet the Immigration Rules [13]. The Tribunal considered Article 8 with reference to Gulshan (Article 8 � new rules/correct approach) [2013 UKUT 640 , Nagre (2013) EWCA 720 (Admin) and Sabir [2014] UKUT 63IAC [14]. It found no compelling or exceptional circumstances rendering the decision unjustifiably harsh requiring it to go on to consider a second stage Article 8 assessment.

The grounds maintain that the Tribunal erred by failing to continue to a second stage Article 8 assessment. The Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of family life between adults. Reliance was placed on SSHD v HK Turkey [2010] EWCA Civ 583 and RP and RP (Zimbabwe) [2008] EWCA Civ 825 .