OA032382013

This appeal comes before me following the grant of permission by First-tier Tribunal Judge Nicholson on 12 September 2013 in respect of the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Plumptre dismissing the appeal for entry clearance as a spouse on 12 July 2013.

The ECO considered that he had failed to disclose facts material to his application and that he had contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the rules. Additionally, the maintenance requirements of the rules were not met. The application was refused under paragraph 320(11), paragraph EC-P.1.1 (c) and (d), E-ECP 3.1 and S-EC.2.2 (b) of Appendix FM. The sponsor visited the appellant in Afghanistan between 22 September 2011 and 18 October 2011 and on 15 June 2012 gave birth to a son.

At the hearing before me on 25 October 2013, Mr Fouladvand summarised his lengthy grounds into two concise criticisms; first, the judge had failed to consider the discretionary element in paragraph 320(11) and, second, that this meant that her assessment of Article 8 was flawed because she relied on the 320(11) finding when undertaking the balancing exercise.

Having considered the evidence, the grounds, the submissions made by the parties and the determination, I conclude that the judge did not make any errors of law and that the grounds seek to promote a very weak case.

Although Part II of the permission application purports to set out �grounds� and numbers the first one: �Irrationality�, there is no ground two so I can only presume all the following paragraphs are designed to establish the alleged irrationality. The grounds warn of the high threshold to be reached before a finding on deception can be made. I would likewise say that to succeed in an irrationality challenge requires the crossing of a very high threshold. That has certainly not been done in this case.