HU019202017 [2018] UKAITUR HU019202017 (17 October 2018)

HU019202017 [2018] UKAITUR HU019202017 (17 October 2018)

The claimant failed to demonstrate ongoing emotional dependency between herself and her father since his departure to the UK in 2012. While there was evidence of regular financial support, the evidence did not establish the required element of continuing emotional dependency necessary to engage Article 8 ECHR family...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] UKAITUR HU019202017
Parties
Appellant: Entry Clearance Officer; Respondent/claimant: Tafadzwa [C]
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Asylum Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal and Remaking of Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Family Life, Visit Visa, Financial and Emotional Dependency, Immigration Rules
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Article 8 ECHR Family Life Visit Visa Financial and Emotional Dependency Immigration Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Entry Clearance Officer

Appellant

Tafadzwa [C]

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Asylum Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal and Remaking of Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of entry clearance as a family visitor engaged Article 8 ECHR on the basis of family life
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of ongoing financial and emotional dependency to establish family life under Article 8
  3. 3 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in finding Article 8 engaged

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate ongoing emotional dependency between herself and her father since his departure to the UK in 2012. While there was evidence of regular financial support, the evidence did not establish the required element of continuing emotional dependency necessary to engage Article 8 ECHR family life. The First-tier Tribunal erred in law by not adequately addressing the gap in evidence and the requirements set out in Kugathas and subsequent case law. Accordingly, Article 8 was not engaged and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed