VA166302013

The Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) has been granted permission to appeal the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Colvin allowing the appeal of the respondent against a decision made by the E CO of 16 July 2013 to refuse him entry clearance as a visitor in accordance with paragraph 41 of the Immigration Rules.

The judge determined the appeal on the papers. The respondent applied for a visa to visit his 2 year old son who resides with his mother in the UK for two weeks. He said that he is divorced from his ex-wife who is the child�s mother. In his grounds of appeal he confirmed that his son Arat lives with his mother in Birmingham as refugees. It was sixteen months since he had seen the child and he had made three applications which had all been refused. He permitted his ex-wife to take his son to the UK as she could not live in Iran. He just wanted to see his son and did not want to stay in the UK.

He produced a copy of a Divorce Deed with the translation dated 19 June 2013 and a certificate from the General Justice Department of Tehran dated 2 June 2013 with a translation dated 19 June 2013.

The ECO also considered that the respondent had provided no satisfactory documents to demonstrate that he has custody rights to see his son as he is divorced. These factors undermined his credibility and the overall credibility of the application. Added to this, the ECO did not consider that the respondent�s circumstances in Iran were dissimilar to those of his ex-wife and child and given that they have applied for and been granted refugee status, the ECO was not satisfied that the respondent�s intentions were merely that of a visitor.

The judge also considered that the ECO had raised a question of whether the respondent was intending to seek refugee status in the UK, like his ex-wife. She thought it was not reasonably possible to reach a view on this on the evidence that was before her. The mere fact that his ex-wife has done so does not automatically mean that an inference can be drawn in relation to the respondent in the absence of substantive evidence indicating that this was likely to be so. She had no information submitted by the ECO regarding the respondent�s two previous applications and refusals.