OA151392013 & ors

The Respondents appealed, successfully, to the FtT. Their appeals were allowed under Article 8 ECHR. In allowing the appeals, the FtT identified the central issue as that of proportionality and expressed its conclusion in the following terms, in [31]:

While the appeals were allowed under Article 8 ECHR, they were dismissed under the Immigration Rules. There is no cross appeal by the Respondents against the latter aspect of the FtT�s decision.

The second ground of appeal contends that the impugned decisions of the ECO do not entail an interference with the right to respect for family life enjoyed by the four persons concerned given their de facto separation during the past nine years. The reason given by the Judge for finding an interference is that the impugned decisions have � prevented reunification of the family as a unit �: see [28]. This is an entirely valid reason, consonant with the Article 8 ECHR jurisprudence. The second ground of appeal has no merit in consequence.

The third ground of appeal focuses on the Judge�s assessment of the sponsor�s capacity to work and his ability to satisfy the relevant financial requirements or to qualify for one of the exceptions. The Judge stated, in [30]:

� I have gone on to consider the financial circumstances. The Respondent chose not to do a thorough examination of the sponsor�s finances. However, the sponsor �. is unable to work because of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident �