OA184162013

The appellant, a citizen of India, born on 31 August 1989, appeals, with permission, against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal N M K Lawrence who in a determination promulgated on 9 September 2014 dismissed the appellant�s appeal against a decision of the Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi, to refuse him entry clearance as a spouse under the provisions of Appendix FM and paragraph 320(11) of HC 395.

The judge then went on to set out case law relating to the rights of the appellant under Article 8 of the ECHR and then in paragraph 29 stated:-

The grounds went on to refer to paragraph 320(11) of the Rules, arguing that extra care should be taken on the application of paragraph 320(11) given that the public interest was involved as those in the United Kingdom unlawfully should be encouraged to return to their country of origin in order to apply for lawful entry under the Immigration Rules.

Judge Cox granted permission on the basis that the second ground of appeal had arguable merit on the basis that the judge had arguably erred in failing to consider and apply MM (Lebanon) and therefore disqualified himself from a full Article 8 proportionality assessment. He added that he was �less sanguine� about the other grounds but would not rule them out.

I considered first whether or not the judge was correct to decide that the appellant�s exclusion was justified by the provisions of paragraph 320(11). I consider that the Entry Clearance Officer was entitled to refuse the application on that basis. This is not merely the case of an appellant who had entered Britain illegally but one who clearly had made various attempts to subvert immigration control.