VA062932014

This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). However, for the purposes of this decision, I shall refer to the SSHD as the respondent and Mrs Imtiaz as the appellant, reflecting their positions as they were in the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal.

The appellant lodged an appeal against that decision. It was asserted in the grounds that there was no intention to deceive, but the appellant had only mentioned her son since he was the only family member she was intending to visit. An explanation was also given for the source of the deposit in her husband's account. In response to the appeal the respondent maintained the decision and did not consider that it was in breach of the appellant's Article 8 rights.

Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was sought by the respondent on the basis that the judge's finding that family life existed between the appellant and her sponsor was contrary to relevant caselaw such as Kugathas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 31 and Ghising & Ors (Ghurkhas/BOCs : historic wrong; weight) (Nepal) [2013] UKUT 567 ; that the judge's proportionality assessment was inadequate; and that the judge had given inadequate reasons for concluding that the appellant had not intended to deceive the ECO.

Permission to appeal was initially refused, but was subsequently granted on 10 September 2015.

I then advised the sponsor that the judge's decision on Article 8 could not stand and had to be re-made by dismissing the appeal, but that the decision under paragraph 320(7A) and (7B) would not be maintained by the respondent.