UI2023002799

       The appellant is Nepalese. His date of birth is given as 20 June 1978 by his mother but the appellant in his statement refers to 23 June 1976. He states there was no system of registration in place. He has however used the date given by his mother. Nothing however turns on precise date.

       On the 23rd of March 2022 he applied for entry clearance as the adult dependent child of his mother. I refer to her hereinafter as `the sponsor '. The sponsor is a widow. His deceased father was a former Gurkha soldier.

       His application was refused on 21 September 2022. The respondent considered it under paragraph EC-DR1.1.of appendix FM of the immigration rules. This includes eligibility requirements which state the applicant requires long-term personal care because of age, illness or disability. He had indicated no disability or inability to care for himself.

       The respondent stated discretionary arrangements in place for the adult children of Gurkha soldiers do not apply to the children of widow .Furthermore, applicants must be between 18 and 30 years of age.

       The respondent went on to consider article 8. The decision said he had not demonstrated family life over and above the norm between adult child and parent. Reference was made to Ghising [2013] UKUT 567 .It held that where article 8 is engaged and the applicant would have settled a long time ago but for a historic wrong that would normally determine of proportionality. Here, the respondent did not accept family life was engaged. If it were, that did not outweigh the proportionality assessment.