OA044082013

This determination concerns a resumed hearing of this appeal. Following the earlier hearing, on 10 th June 2014, I set aside the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sangha by which he had allowed under Article 8 ECHR the appeal of Matloob Sarfraz against refusal of entry clearance as a spouse. My decision in that regard is annexed to this determination and is incorporated into it. As indicated in my earlier decision in the interests of continuity I continue to revert to the parties as they were described before the First-tier Tribunal.

Judge Sangha had dismissed the appeal under the Immigration Rules and there had been no appeal against that decision. At the commencement of the hearing before me it was confirmed that the only issue arose under Article 8. Judge Sangha had found that as at the date of decision under appeal (7 th December 2012) the gross income of the Sponsor, Mrs Sabir Sadia, the wife of the Appellant, was �15,600 per annum. That figure was not in dispute. The representatives were in agreement that the hearing should proceed by way of submissions only.

Finally in response Ms Hussain submitted AAO had been decided under the old Rules, which rely on income support levels as the yardstick and it was not necessarily the case that this Appellant would become dependent on public funds on the basis of the Sponsor�s income as at the date of decision. Having heard those submissions I reserved my determination of the appeal which I now give.

The guidance in Gulshan (Article 8 � new Rules � correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 and Nagre v SSHD [2013] EWHC 720 (Admin) indicates that if an Appellant does not meet the requirements of the Rules there need to be good grounds shown for going beyond the Rules to consider issues under Article 8 and only if there are compelling circumstances or the result would be unjustifiably harsh consequences should the appeal be allowed on that basis. That approach has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Haleemudeen v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 558 .

In order to ascertain whether the Appellant has potentially a good arguable case under Article 8 which might entail unjustifiably harsh consequences as a result of the decision or compelling circumstances for allowing the appeal I have had regard to the approach to Article 8 approved by the House of Lords in Razgar v SSHD [2004] UKHL 27 and in particular the series of steps suggested by Lord Bingham at paragraph 17.