OA016662013 & OA016672013

Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the appellants. This direction applies to both the appellants and to the respondent and a failure to comply with this direction could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings.

The appellants appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. In a determination promulgated on 12 November 2013, Judge Moore dismissed each of the appellants� appeals. First, he was not satisfied that the sponsor had �sole responsibility� for the appellants� upbringing and secondly he was not satisfied that there were any serious or compelling family or other considerations which made exclusion of the appellants undesirable. Consequently the requirements of paragraph 297 were not met.

The sponsor did not attend the hearing as, I was told by her husband �AB�, she was in Thailand. The sponsor�s husband attended on her behalf. The respondent was represented by Mr Richards.

Mr Richards invited me to find that the Judge had not erred in law in finding that the appellants had failed to establish that there were �serious and compelling family or other considerations� under para 297(f). Mr Richards recognised that there was evidence before the Judge of troubling events but these had occurred after the ECO�s decision and could not be taken into account.

Mr Richards indicated that if I was satisfied that there was an error of law in the Judge�s finding on �sole responsibility�, I should remake the decision in the light of all the evidence including that of the sponsor�s husband, AB whose evidence the Judge had accepted. Mr Richards did not seek to put forward a positive case that the evidence did not establish that the sponsor had �sole responsibility� for the appellants.