OA156282014

In considering all of the evidence in the round and having made the findings of fact set out above, particularly in relation to the Appellant's deterioration in her mental health, I am satisfied that compelling circumstances do exist in this case and that the Appellant's personal and family circumstances are such that the decision constitutes a disproportionate interference in the Appellant's right to family life and as such breaches the UK's obligations under Article 8".

The appellant (hereafter the ECO) was successful in obtaining a grant of permission to appeal.

I granted permission to Miss Prabhu, the granddaughter of the claimant, to represent her at the hearing before me.

The grounds of appeal were essentially four-headed. First it was alleged that the judge had erred in jumping straight from consideration of the Immigration Rules to determining whether Article 8 was engaged, thereby failing to adopt the approach enjoined by the Court of Appeal in SSHD v SS (Congo) and Others [2015] EWCA Civ 387 which was to deal with the Rules first, not just to see if its requirements were met but also so as "to assess the force of the public interest given expression in those Rules" ( SS (Congo) at [44].

The second contention was that when finding that the claimant's mental health had been adversely affected by social isolation the judge had failed fully to consider the availability of social care in India. The judge was said to have discounted such care and made a finding as to the inadequacy of care homes in India that was not open to him on the evidence.