OA197382013 & OA198512013

The central question that came substantively before First-tier Tribunal Judge Bradshaw on 10 th September 2014 was whether two of the older children of Dr A, at that point aged 23 and 24, were still part of the family unit headed by Dr A and his wife and comprising also a younger child.

The documentation, none of which was tested by the hearing of evidence in the case, includes material that suggests that the period of study of the two adult children began respectively in 2010 and 2007. For the period of study beginning in 2007 the term of study was one of four years and thus on the face of it would have come to an end in 2011. That is the year before Dr A had to leave Pakistan and two years before the decision of the Respondent and three years before the decision of the Judge.

We say a little bit more about the evidence of "oppression" to use the term used in submissions to describe the environment experienced initially by Dr A and now, on the face of their statements, experienced by the two children. The Judge had, amongst other things, this to say in that connection at paragraph 46 of his decision:

"However it does not seem to me that the Appellants have established the claimed difficulties which they may be having in Pakistan are relevant to the issue of an Article 8 claim on the basis of the adult children's relationship which they have with their father and with their mother."

The overall assessment of the present case is that, without any undue criticism, because First-Tier Tribunal Judge Bradshaw was in a difficult situation, the reasons and therefore his determination of the First-tier Tribunal could lead an objective reader who had had sight of the underlying materials to feel that not all of the matters that needed to be addressed had been addressed and not all the conflicts of fact that surround the key issue had been resolved. That is our decision subject to any further observation from the parties.