IA018922014 & Others

The appellants are nationals of Nigeria, mother, adult daughter and minor daughter. They appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against decisions of the respondent refusing them leave to remain. Judge Bruce dismissed their appeals. They now appeal, with permission, to this Tribunal. Although they are members of one family, the issues raised are not identical, because the second appellant is not dependent upon her mother, whereas the third is. Like the First-tier Tribunal Judge, we shall deal with the second appellant first; we shall then return to her position at the end of this determination.

On appeal against that decision to the First-tier Tribunal, Judge Bruce heard oral evidence from her, and regarded her as credible. The judge accepted that she was not responsible for the arrangements made for her arrival in the United Kingdom or for her overstaying. Judge Bruce found that she did not meet the requirements of the rules, and that although her removal from the United Kingdom would amount to an interference with her private and family life, the interference would not be disproportionate. Thus she dismissed the second appellant's appeal.

On 29 December 2013 she raised human rights arguments based on the continuity of the third appellant's education and private life in this country, and on the basis that the first appellant needed further time in the United Kingdom in order to settle the second appellant down here.

At the date of the hearing before Judge Bruce, the CAS had expired, but the appellant had been able to obtain a new one. The argument before Judge Bruce was that the first appellant is a genuine student who is in funds, but cannot make a Tier 4 application whilst the appeal is outstanding, whereas if she withdraws it her CAS will lapse. The remedy of departure to Nigeria to make a new application was unduly harsh because of the impact on the third appellant's education.

The third appellant is now aged 15. She is at school. She has had leave in line with that granted to her mother, and the present application accompanied her mother's. It was refused on the ground that her mother's leave had been refused and she too was given notice of that decision, and a decision to remove her, on 21 December 2013. Although her position as a minor currently in education in the United Kingdom has clear and independent relevance to the outcome of the appeal, it is convenient to look at her appeal with her mother's as Judge Bruce did.