HU158752017 & Ors. [2019] UKAITUR HU158752017 (20 June 2019)

HU158752017 & Ors. [2019] UKAITUR HU158752017 (20 June 2019)

The First-tier Tribunal judge erred in law regarding the scope of the adult dependent relative rules, but the error was not material because the appellant did not meet the substantive requirements for dependency or family life under Article 8 ECHR. There was no interference with Article 8 rights, and the refusal of entry clearance was proportionate and justified.

Citation
[2019] UKAITUR HU158752017
Parties
First Appellant: Mrs D A; Second Appellant: Master S Sh S; Third Appellant: Master S Sa S; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal From First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Adult Dependent Relative, Article 8 ECHR, Family Life, Immigration Rules
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Entry Clearance Adult Dependent Relative Article 8 ECHR Family Life Immigration Rules

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs D A

First Appellant

Master S Sh S

Second Appellant

Master S Sa S

Third Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal From First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first appellant qualifies for entry clearance as an adult dependent relative under the Immigration Rules
  2. 2 Whether refusal of entry clearance breaches Article 8 ECHR rights to family life
  3. 3 Whether the First-tier Tribunal judge made a material error of law in interpreting the Immigration Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal judge erred in law regarding the scope of the adult dependent relative rules, but the error was not material because the appellant did not meet the substantive requirements for dependency or family life under Article 8 ECHR. There was no interference with Article 8 rights, and the refusal of entry clearance was proportionate and justified.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed under both the Immigration Rules and Article 8 ECHR
  • Anonymity direction granted under Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008