OA007142014

This is an appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Adio, promulgated on 4 th December 2014, following the hearing at Hatton Cross on 17 th November 2014. In the determination, the judge allowed the appeal of Hem Kumari Pahim. The Respondent subsequently for, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matter comes before me.

The judge recounted the facts. He observed how the Sponsor�s husband had been discharged from the army in 1959 before the Sponsor�s marriage. The Sponsor, Mrs Dhan Meyaa Limbu, then had her daughter, Hem Kumari Pahim, born to her in 1979. This was twenty years after her husband�s discharge. Her husband then died when he was 81 years old. Since that time, the Sponsor and the daughter have been very close. In fact, they had been living together (see paragraph 5).

When the Sponsor came to the UK, her daughter, the Appellant, did not come with her. She was not allowed to do so. However, the Sponsor speaks to her daughter �most of the time every week� (paragraph 6). Her daughter is well and is studying a Masters degree. It was the Sponsor who paid for the Appellant�s Masters degree programme. The Appellant is living with a relative. Indeed, �her daughter is paying for rent and studying in Nepal� (paragraph 6).

The judge found that the Sponsor had made it clear that there are regular payments made to her daughter through her Nepalese account and that the Sponsor was credible (paragraph 15). The judge had regard to the well established authorities of Gurung [2013] EWCA Civ 8 and Ghising [2012] UKUT 160 . The case of Gurung made it clear that ultimately the question of whether an individual enjoys family life is one of fact and depends on a careful consideration of all the relevant facts. The judge held that,

�In the present case, the only time that the Appellant and her mother has spent apart has been between 2011 and the present time when the Sponsor has been settled in the UK. Furthermore, the Sponsor has been back to her daughter in Nepal even though she only spent thirteen days with her but gave a credible reason to avoid paying double rent �. I find that the Appellant is still financially dependent on the Sponsor and there are emotional ties between both of them. The Sponsor has stated that she calls her daughter most of the time� (paragraph 17).