OA203122013

The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on 2 nd October 1997. The Appellant had applied for entry clearance as a child under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. Her application was refused under paragraph EC-C.1.1.(d) of Appendix FM of the Rules. In refusing the application it was noted that the Appellant's mother was divorced from her father but there was no supporting evidence that her father gave his consent for her to travel to the UK with her mother and there was also no evidence to show that the Appellant's mother had sole responsibility for her.

The Appellant appealed and the appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Grimmett sitting at Birmingham on 11 th November 2014, the appeal was based both under the Immigration Rules and under Article 8 and in a decision promulgated on 1 st December 2014 the Appellant's appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

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. The Appellant appears by her instructed legal representative Mr Choudhury. Mr Choudhury is familiar with this matter having appeared before the First-tier Tribunal. The Secretary of State appears by her Home Office Presenting Officer Mr Jarvis.

Mr Jarvis starts off by commenting that there is nothing in this appeal whatsoever. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Sponsor may want the child to enter, and that it is incumbent in such circumstances for the judge to look at the situation, the First-tier Tribunal Judge has given reasons for any inconsistencies and therefore any perceived failings (which he disputes) on the judge's analysis and her duty to give reasons fall away. Mr Jarvis specifically takes me to paragraphs 11 to 14 of the determination which he submits highlight the judge's concerns about the evidence that was before her.

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