OA075782014

The appellant in these proceedings is the Entry Clearance Officer who was the respondent before the First-tier Tribunal Judge. For ease of reference I refer to the parties as the Entry Clearance Officer and the claimant. The claimant was born on 26 th July, 1997 and is a national of Sierra Leone. Her father, the sponsor, is a British subject originally from Sierra Leone. He appeared before me today and gave me certain evidence, as a result of which I am able to prepare this determination.

There was no dispute between the parties that she was able to meet the remaining requirements of the Immigration Rules.

The sponsor gave oral evidence at the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal and there was cross-examination although not going to the issues of his credibility and submissions were made. The judge concluded that claimant met all the disputed requirements of paragraph 297 and allowed the appeal under the Immigration Rules. The judge refers to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, but did not go on to consider whether an adverse immigration decision resulted in a breach of human rights because, that was not of course necessary.

The Entry Clearance Officer appealed, suggesting first that the judge had failed to apply the correct test set out in KA and Others (Adequacy of maintenance) Pakistan [2006] UKAIT 00065 , which required a comparator of income as at the date of decision, in this case 7 th March 2014, with the relevant income support entitlement in addition to housing costs, in this case rent and council tax, and does not allow for reliance on third party support.

Secondly, that the judge took into account evidence of circumstances that did not appertain at the date of decision, namely the release of funds for the claimant's maintenance as a result of another of the sponsor�s children going to university contrary to Section 85 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.