MK (Adequacy of Maintenance-Disabled Sponsor) Somalia [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 2007 |
| Date | 13 March 2007 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
E Arfon-Jones, Deputy President and Mather SIJ
Representation
Mr Philip Nathan instructed by Hersi & Co., for the Claimant;
Miss Sally Leatherland, Home Office Presenting Officer, for the Secretary of State.
Cases referred to:
KA and Others (Adequacy of Maintenance) Pakistan[2006] UKAIT 00065; [2007] Imm AR 155
Uvovo v Entry Clearance Officer, Lagos (Immigration Appeal Tribunal, 00/TH/01450, 15 June 2000)
Legislation judicially considered:
Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended), paragraph 281
Immigration entry clearance spouses and civil partners paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules adequate maintenance without recourse to public funds sponsors disabled sponsor income derived solely from benefits and disability allowance DLA could not be disregarded even if sponsor did not use it
The Claimant, a citizen of Somalia, applied from Ethiopia for entry clearance to join his wife (the Sponsor), who had been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. The Sponsor, both deaf and dumb, derived her entire income from income support and disability living allowance (DLA). The Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) refused the Claimant's application. On appeal, an Immigration Judge was not satisfied that the Claimant and Sponsor could adequately maintain themselves without recourse to public funds for the purposes of paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended). The Judge rejected the Claimant's argument, based upon Uvovo (00/TH/01450), that the couple could adequately maintain themselves without recourse to public funds because the Sponsor was already receiving income at a higher level than the amount of job seeker's allowance paid to a married couple. The Judge distinguished Uvovo, which concerned a low earning sponsor, and found that a single person in receipt of certain benefits had those benefits assessed on the basis that she needed that amount of money for her situation. The Claimant applied for reconsideration on the grounds that first, the Judge had erred in failing to apply Uvovo, as the principles had been restated in KA and others (Adequacy of maintenance) Pakistan[2006] UKAIT 00065; secondly, the DLA received by the Sponsor was not ring-fenced and could be spent by the Sponsor in any way she chose. An order for reconsideration was made.
Held, affirming the original determination dismissing the Claimant's appeal against the decision by the ECO:
(1) KA, and before it Uvovo, could be distinguished as both cases compared a low earning sponsor's income with income support levels; in this case the Tribunal was being asked to regard the enhanced benefits received by the Sponsor in the same way as earnings, with the DLA almost in the form of a bonus which the Sponsor could spend in any way she chose (para 12);
(2) the Government did not provide bonuses to the recipients of benefits; DLA was there to help towards necessary care and necessary extra mobility expenses arising from a disability and it was paid to the Sponsor because she was perceived as having greater need for funds than an able bodied person; KA was not intended to be authority for the proposition that DLA was an extra amount of money which a person might or might not need and which, together with the enhanced income support, would put the Sponsor in the position that she had more funds than the joint income support level which was the minimum level for an able bodied couple; for the reasons adumbrated in KA it was inappropriate to disregard that benefit even if the Sponsor was claiming to live frugally and not to use it (paras 13, 15 and 18);
(3) the Judge made no error of law in finding that the Claimant could not be maintained in the United Kingdom without recourse to public funds (para 19).
[1] The appellant is a citizen of Somalia, born on 12 July 2004. He applied from Ethiopia to the respondent for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as a spouse.
[2] His wife is his sponsor. She has been recognised as a refugee by the United Kingdom. She is deaf and dumb and lives in the United Kingdom with her sister, SG. The sponsor's sister is a British citizen, having come here as a refugee. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AM (3rd Party Support Not Permitted R281(v)) Ethiopia [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal]
...AR 155 KP (Para 317: mothers-in-law) India[2006] UKAIT 00093 MK (Adequacy of maintenancedisabled sponsor) Somalia[2007] UKAIT 00028; [2007] Imm AR 557 MN v Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad[2002] UKIAT 01369 Panaich v Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi (00/TH/0072) R v Secretary of State f......
-
VS (Para 317(III)-No 3rd Party Support) Sri Lanka [Asylum and Immigration Tribunal]
...R281 (v)) Ethiopia[2007] UKAIT 00058; [2007] Imm AR 627 MK (Adequacy of maintenancedisabled sponsor) Somalia[2007] UKAIT 00028; [2007] Imm AR 557 Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Kashmiri v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK[2007] UKHL 11; [2007] 2 AC 167; [200......