VA002962014 & Ors.

A Rule 24 notice was lodged. Contrary to what was said in the grounds the judge had set out his factual findings in relation to family life and set out well-known jurisprudence. Most of the grounds amounted to no more than a disagreement with the judge�s decision and were an attempt to reargue the case.

The grounds were found to be arguable and thus the matter came before me on the above date.

For the Secretary of State Ms Savage relied on her grounds. The statement at paragraph 56 of the decision that the �appellants� right to respect for their private lives is engaged� was unreasoned. This was not a case where family life could be said to exist. I was referred to Mostafa (Article 8 and entry clearance) [2015] UKUT 112 (IAC) which was a husband and wife case and very fact specific. The relationship between the parties could be continued as before and that would merely maintain the status quo. I was asked to set the decision aside and remake the decision dismissing the appeal.

Ms Easty relied on her Rule 24 notice and also said that this was a case where the claimant and her family would have succeeded under the old Immigration Rules � see the findings at paragraphs 3 and 57. In terms of Mostafa that was a weighty factor to take into account. Family life was not being argued in this case � this was a private life case where the decision should be upheld.

The background to this case is that the Appellants before the First Tier Judge were mother and children respectively and they are the Sponsor's daughter (first Appellant and claimant) and grandchildren. The applications were to see the UK relatives. It is common ground between parties that the appeal rights for visitors coming to visit family members are now restricted and the only ground open to these Appellants were that to refuse them entry would breach their fundamental but qualified rights under Article 8 ECHR. The Sponsor and her husband are refugees being Coptic Christians.