IA268302014

Although this is an appeal by the Secretary of State, we shall refer to the parties as in the First-tier Tribunal. The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on 4 th April 1986. His appeal against the Respondent � s decision to refuse to grant leave to remain pursuant to Article 8 was allowed by the First-tier Tribunal on 26 th November 2014.

On 12 th February 1012 the Appellant married Mrs Hangame Dayhistani, a British citizen. The Appellant then sought further leave to remain but this was refused on 13 th December 2012. It would appear that the Appellant then sought reconsideration and the Respondent refused to grant leave to remain in a decision dated 12 th June 2014 on the basis that the Appellant was not in a genuine and subsisting relationship with Mrs Dayhistani.

At the hearing before First-tier Tribunal Judge Chohan, it was accepted that the appeal was on Article 8 grounds only. The judge found that the starting point must be the decision of Judge Eban, who found that the Appellant and Mrs Dayhistani were credible witnesses and their relationship was genuine and subsisting. In the Respondent � s decision of 13 th December 2012 the Appellant � s application had been refused on the basis that he had leave to remain for less than six months. At that time no issue was taken in respect of the Appellant � s relationship with Mrs Dayhistani.

The judge found that since Judge Eban � s decision nothing had really changed in respect of the parties � relationship apart from the fact that they were now married and therefore had reinforced their relationship. Following Judge Eban � s decision, the Respondent granted the Appellant leave to remain in order for him to complete his studies and get married. That he had done and the judge saw no purpose in making him return to his home country in order to make an application for entry clearance.

The Appellant had been in the country lawfully and established a relationship at a time when he was here in a legal capacity. The judge found that the Appellant � s leave to remain was not of a precarious nature. The Appellant could speak English and the evidence suggested that he was financially independent. The judge went on to find that, on balance, he was satisfied that the interference with the Appellant � s family life was not necessary for any of the reasons set out in Article 8(2) of the ECHR.