IA178492014 & Ors.

Firstly, it was said that the judge had allowed the appeal on the basis that the first Claimant was the primary carer of a British child and that the child would be required to leave the UK if she were removed. However that was not made out and the first Claimant could not benefit from the Zambrano judgment as she was not the primary carer - she was a primary carer. The judge had speculated about the Claimant's husband needing to cease employment.

Secondly, it appeared that the judge had unlawfully shifted the burden of proof by saying that no evidence had been submitted by the Secretary of State namely that she had not established that the first Claimant's husband had any previous experience in looking after a small child.

Thirdly and finally, in terms of Article 8, there was no reason why family life could not continue between the parties in India.

Permission to appeal was granted and thus the appeal came before me on the above date.

For the Secretary of State Mr Staunton relied on the grounds of application. In particular there was nothing to say that the first Claimant's husband would have to keep on working. The judge had misapplied the burden of proof in paragraph 12 of the decision. There had been no adequate assessment under Article 8.