HU228712018 [2019] UKAITUR HU228712018 (31 October 2019)

HU228712018 [2019] UKAITUR HU228712018 (31 October 2019)

The First-tier Tribunal's decision was procedurally unfair as it failed to consider material evidence properly submitted by the appellant. Upon remaking, the evidence demonstrated that the appellant and sponsor met all requirements of Appendix FM at the date of decision, including having met in person, being in a genuine and subsisting relationship, and intending to live together permanently. Refusal of entry clearance was therefore a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights, and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
[2019] UKAITUR HU228712018
Parties
Appellant: VR; Respondent: Entry Clearance Officer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal and Remaking
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Entry Clearance, Same Sex Partnership, Article 8 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Appendix FM Immigration Rules
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Entry Clearance Same Sex Partnership Article 8 ECHR Procedural Fairness Appendix FM 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VR

Appellant

Entry Clearance Officer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Upper Tribunal Appeal and Remaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First-tier Tribunal's decision was procedurally unfair due to failure to consider all evidence
  2. 2 Whether the appellant met the requirements of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules for entry clearance as a partner
  3. 3 Whether refusal of entry clearance was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The First-tier Tribunal's decision was procedurally unfair as it failed to consider material evidence properly submitted by the appellant. Upon remaking, the evidence demonstrated that the appellant and sponsor met all requirements of Appendix FM at the date of decision, including having met in person, being in a genuine and subsisting relationship, and intending to live together permanently. Refusal of entry clearance was therefore a disproportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights, and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the First-tier Tribunal set aside
  • Appeal allowed on Article 8 ECHR grounds