OA134762013

On 17 th July 2014 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Grant-Hutchison granted permission to appeal and that it was an arguable error of law that the judge had come to the conclusion that the fact that the couple were seeking medical treatment for IVF constituted �exceptional circumstances� when the judge�s conclusion was not supported by medical or objective evidence showing that treatment was unavailable in Pakistan.

No Rule 24 response appears to have been filed by the Appellant�s solicitors. It is on that basis that the appeal comes before me to determine whether or not there is a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge. For the purpose of continuity within the appeal proceedings the Secretary of State is referred to herein as the Respondent and Mr Mahmood as the Appellant. The Appellant appears by his instructed solicitor Ms Zahoor. The Secretary of State appears by her Home Office Presenting Officer Mrs Petterson.

�She tried to get IVF treatment in Pakistan but due to her age and poor results she was advised in Pakistan to have IVF in UK.� .

Areas of legislative interpretation, failure to follow binding authority or to distinguish it with adequate reasons, ignoring material considerations by taking into account immaterial consideration, reaching irrational conclusions on fact or evaluation or to give legally inadequate reasons for the decision and procedural unfairness, constitute errors of law.

The authorities now show that it is inappropriate to consider a threshold test as opposed to making it clear that there is a need to look at the evidence to see if there was anything which had not already been adequately considered in the context of the Immigration Rules which could lead to a successful Article 8 claim. And there is no utility in imposing a further intermediate test as a preliminary to a consideration of an Article 8 claim beyond the relevant criterion-based Rule.