OA081912014

For the sake of continuity I will refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal although technically the Entry Clearance Officer is the appellant in the appeal before the Upper Tribunal.

On 03 March 2014 the appellant made a second application for entry clearance for refugee family reunion. At the date of the second application she was 18 years old. The respondent refused the application on 12 June 2014 on the ground that she was not under 18 years old at the date of the application and did not meet the requirements of Appendix FM for entry as an adult dependent relative. The appellant appealed the decision.

After having considered the grounds of appeal and oral arguments I am satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal decision involved the making of an error on a point of law.

It is clear from the decision that the judge was aware of the fact that appellant made an "initial application" for entry clearance in 2012, which was refused [11]. He was also aware of the fact that a further decision was made to refuse entry clearance for family reunion under Part 11 of the immigration rules (paragraph 352A-FJ) on 12 June 2014. The judge identified the second decision as the subject of this appeal [10 & 17].

The judge was faced with some difficulty in deciding the appeal in light of the fact that the respondent failed to serve a bundle and did not attend the hearing. As such, he was unaware of the fact that the appellant appealed the first decision made in 2012. No doubt his task was also made more difficult by the way in which the appellant's representative is said to have put the case. It was suggested that the second decision to refuse entry clearance somehow formed part of a continuing application for entry clearance [15].