VA216392012 & VA216352012

The appellant in these proceedings is the Entry Clearance Officer, however for convenience I shall now refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.

The appellants are citizens of Russia born on 1 February 1980 on 27 December 2007 respectively. The first appellant is the mother of the second appellant. They appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 24 May 2012 refusing to grant them entry clearance to the United Kingdom as visitors. Their appeals were heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Suchak and allowed under the Immigration Rules and under Article 8 of ECHR in a determination promulgated on 17 May 2013.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the only ground for consideration is section 84 (1) (c) of the 2002 Act. Both parties accepted this.

Counsel submitted that when the judge dealt with proportionality he had to decide whether there had been deception on the part of the appellants. The judge states that if the appellant used deception then the decision is proportionate.

Counsel submitted that the determination is impeccable. The judge has gone through the step by step approach required in the case of Razgar. At paragraph 77 he refers to reputation, the appellant�s private life in the UK and the ties she has developed here over the years. The judge quotes the relevant law and at paragraphs 82 and 83 finds that Article 8 is engaged. He then deals with proportionality, finding that Rule 320 (7B) does not apply in this case as there was no deception.