IA153152021 & IA153162021 [2023] UKAITUR IA153152021 (26 May 2023)

IA153152021 & IA153162021 [2023] UKAITUR IA153152021 (26 May 2023)

There was no evidence that the appellants' living arrangements in Ethiopia were inadequate or that their welfare was suffering. The evidence did not demonstrate serious and compelling family or other considerations making their exclusion undesirable. The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law by refusing to consider the appeal under paragraph 297 without the Secretary of State's consent. The outcome would have been the same under either paragraph 297 or 319X as the material requirements are identical.

Citation
[2023] UKAITUR IA153152021
Parties
First Appellant: SAT; Second Appellant: SAT; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal Following Dismissal by First Tier Tribunal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Paragraph 297 Immigration Rules, Paragraph 319 X Immigration Rules, Article 8 ECHR, Best Interests of Children
Immigration Law Human Rights Entry Clearance Paragraph 297 Immigration Rules Paragraph 319 X Immigration Rules Article 8 ECHR Best Interests of Children

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

SAT

First Appellant

SAT

Second Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal Following Dismissal by First Tier Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants met the requirements for entry clearance under the Immigration Rules
  2. 2 Whether there were serious and compelling family or other considerations making exclusion undesirable
  3. 3 Whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in law by not considering the appeal under paragraph 297

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the appellants' living arrangements in Ethiopia were inadequate or that their welfare was suffering. The evidence did not demonstrate serious and compelling family or other considerations making their exclusion undesirable. The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law by refusing to consider the appeal under paragraph 297 without the Secretary of State's consent. The outcome would have been the same under either paragraph 297 or 319X as the material requirements are identical.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The determination of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.
  • Anonymity order granted pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.