OA126192014

It is common ground between the parties that the appellant was unable to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Indeed, Judge Mensah [9] noted that,

The sponsor accepts that she cannot meet the specified documents required within the Rules because her job with HRA Brothers Limited was not paid into her bank account but instead was paid cash and she did not deposit the entire wage into her bank but says she used the money for her day-to-day expenses .

I do not consider it proportionate to force [the appellant and sponsor] to now re-apply and file the same documents as are before me and can see no material benefit or public interest in forcing them to do so. However I can see that to force them to do so would delay their union and therefore interfere with the family life ( sic )

Finally, I record that Miss Hashimi raised a preliminary issue at the Upper Tribunal hearing. She was concerned that the grant of permission by Judge Rintoul referred, in the headings to the decision, to a different appellant. I am not satisfied that that is any more than a typographical or template error and has no impact whatever upon the validity on Judge Rintoul's grant of permission.

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 10 June 2015 is set aside. I re-make the decision. The appellant's appeal against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer dated 8 September 2014 is dismissed under the Immigration Rules and on Article 8 ECHR grounds.