IA187712013

It was said that the judge had not made any case specific findings addressing the issue of arguably good grounds and compelling circumstances not sufficiently recognised under the Rules. The judge had simply noted that there was no provision within the Rules that would apply to the Appellant.

Permission to appeal was granted and it was said that it was not clear what factors weighed in the judge�s mind when she decided that the Appellant's removal would be unjustifiably harsh. It was said it was arguable that the judge misdirected herself as to the law and Article 8 with reference to Gulshan .

Ms Everett relied on her grounds of application and the grant of permission. Mr Muzenda said that the decision was a reasoned one. There had been a recognition of the decisive issues and the relevant factors. Compelling reasons had been given from paragraph 28 onwards in the determination. The failure per se to mention Gulshan was not fatal to the determination. Mention had been made of medical complications and the loneliness suffered by the Appellant and the fact that there were no family connections in Zimbabwe. Compelling reasons had been given. I was asked to uphold the decision.

She did not consider that the Appellant would, even with the practical and financial help of the Sponsor, be able to obtain the required level of care that she needs in Zimbabwe and she identified sound reasons for that.

She accepted evidence from the Appellant and Sponsor that the Appellant's former home was dilapidated.