UI2022002819

              The appellant is appealing against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Browne ("the judge") dated 21 April 2022. The central issue in dispute before the judge was whether the marriage between the appellant and her husband ("the sponsor") was a marriage of convenience; that is, a marriage whose predominant purpose was to gain an immigration advantage. The issue before me is whether the judge erred in her approach to assessing this question.

              The sponsor and the appellant were interviewed about their marriage. The judge found - and it was not disputed before me - that the interview records (of which there are three) indicate that there were substantial discrepancies in the accounts given by the appellant and sponsor at the interviews.

              The judge found, in the light of the interviews as well as the oral evidence before her, that the marriage was contrived in order to facilitate entry to the UK and that there was not a genuine, subsisting relationship between the appellant and sponsor.

              The grounds of appeal advance three arguments.

              Ground 1, relying on Sadovska & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 54 , argues that it was not open to the judge to find that the respondent had discharged the burden of proof because (two of) the interview records are unsigned and (two of) the interviews were conducted in an inappropriate language. The grounds submit that the appellant is fluent only in Wolof, but the first interview was conducted in French and the second interview was conducted in Fula.