OA065002013

The appellant appeals a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal against a decision of an Entry Clearance Officer refusing entry clearance as a dependant of his father under paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules. The application had been refused on the grounds that he did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules in force at the date of the decision namely that his father had not shown he had sole responsibility for his upbringing; that he could be adequately accommodated and/or maintained without recourse to public funds.

The appellant had first applied for entry clearance to join his father as his dependant in 2006. That application had been refused, the ECO relying on the appellant�s residence with his mother for the previous five years and his temporary living arrangements with a maternal aunt. The appellant�s mother had been interviewed and from that interview it was concluded that she had not given consent to the appellant moving permanently to the UK or that the sponsor father had sole responsibility for the appellant.

The appellant�s case was that he had no further contact with his mother; that his father had arranged for him to stay with a teacher at the school he attended; his father had sole responsibility for him and his father took all relevant decisions with regard to his upbringing and paid all his expenses.

Permission to appeal was granted, in essence, on the grounds that it was arguable that:

(a) The finding that the mother and aunt remained involved in the appellant�s upbringing was arguably flawed in that it relied heavily upon an interview several years old, that there was no evidence that the mother or aunt were involved in the child�s upbringing, that the judge had speculated as to their involvement and had unjustifiably relied heavily upon an interview with the appellant�s mother that was several years old and had failed to give adequate reasons for his rejection of the father�s oral evidence.