OA056272015

"There is nothing in relation to the facts of this case that suggest that the decision of the appellant and the sponsor [to reside] in the United Kingdom arises from anything other than choice as opposed to necessity. I am not therefore satisfied that the consequences of the decision are sufficient to engage the potential operation of Article 8."

Notwithstanding that finding, the judge went on to consider proportionality. He noted that, "the sponsor has lived and worked in the United Kingdom for some thirteen years. He nevertheless remains fluent in Arabic, French and Algerian languages. All his close family members ... continue to reside in Algeria." The judge identified the only possible obstacle to married life being continued in Algeria as being the loss of the sponsor's United Kingdom employment. However, he found that the,

"... with the sponsor's continuing cultural and familial links to Algeria, that obstacle would be easily overcome or at least without undue hardship to any member of the family. The judge found that the refusal of entry clearance strikes a fair balance between the rights and interests of the appellant and her daughter on the one hand and the wider public interest in maintaining immigration controls on the other."