HU027402015 [2017] UKAITUR HU027402015 (24 July 2017)

HU027402015 [2017] UKAITUR HU027402015 (24 July 2017)

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal judge was rationally entitled to accept the Entry Clearance Manager's concession that Article 8(1) was engaged, and that the respondent demonstrated emotional and financial dependency beyond normal ties. The judge properly weighed the historic injustice and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UKAITUR HU027402015
Parties
Appellant: Entry Clearance Officer; Respondent: Arjun Gurung
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Gurkha Settlement, Proportionality, Historic Injustice
Immigration Human Rights Article 8 ECHR Gurkha Settlement Proportionality Historic Injustice

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Entry Clearance Officer

Appellant

Arjun Gurung

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Appeal to Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of entry clearance to the respondent as an adult dependent child of an ex-Gurkha widow constituted a disproportionate interference with family life under Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the respondent demonstrated emotional and financial dependency beyond normal ties to satisfy Article 8(1)
  3. 3 Appropriate weight to historic injustice in proportionality assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal judge was rationally entitled to accept the Entry Clearance Manager's concession that Article 8(1) was engaged, and that the respondent demonstrated emotional and financial dependency beyond normal ties. The judge properly weighed the historic injustice and public interest factors, and the decision to refuse entry clearance constituted a disproportionate interference with family life under Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed.
  • The First-tier Tribunal's decision stands.