IA013312014

For the Appellant: Mr N Garrod, Counsel, instructed by Justice and Law Solicitors

This is the appeal of Lucy Asamoah, a Ghanaian citizen. She applied for a derivative residence card as the primary carer of a British citizen resident in the UK. That application was refused on 18 December 2013 for reasons set out in a letter dated the same date. She appealed and her appeal was heard at the First-tier Tribunal on 8 April 2014 and was dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal Judge dismissed the appeal under the 2006 Regulations and also found that the refusal to grant the appellant a residence card did not put the UK in breach of its obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR.

Permission to appeal was sought and granted on 16 May 2014. The Secretary of State by way of a Rule 24 response dated 4 June 2014 asserted that the appellant was not a credible witness and the judge had been left with a lacuna in the evidence as to how the child's father would behave if the appellant were removed. The Secretary of State drew attention to the findings of the First-tier Tribunal Judge that the child's father cared for the appellant in practical ways and that the findings were logical and sustainable as a result of that.

The appellant claims that the father of the child has nothing to do with the child. The judge on the basis of the evidence before him did not accept that her account was credible in terms of the circumstances surrounding the child's birth or the continued interest of the father.

Documents that were drawn to my attention include a letter at page 79 of the appellant's bundle from the child�s primary school which confirms that he attends nursery school and is brought to school and collected by his mother or an aunt. The application for admission to the primary school is signed by the appellant and there is no mention of the father although of course there is no requirement on that form for the father to be named.