Secretary of state for the home department v Evgeniou
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 1978 |
| Date | 14 February 1978 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
L. P. Mosdell Esq (Chairman) Mrs J. D. Caine, A. S. W. Newman Esq
B. Hunter for the appellant Secretary of State.
L. Grant, solicitor, for the respondent/applicant.
Independent Means Capital and pension yielding income of 30 weekly in 1976 [Husband and wife residing rent free with son in United Kingdom Benefit of residence with son to be disregarded when assessing adequacy of means on application in 1976 30 weekly considered inadequate HC 79, para 35; HC 80 para 29.
In the determination reported below the Tribunal considered the potential as well as actual outgoings for which financial provision should be made by an applicant seeking settlement in the United Kingdom as a person of independent means under the immigration rules HC 79 para 35 and HC 80 para 29.1 Tribunal was of the opinion that a capital sum and a pension which together provided a weekly income of 30 in 1976 was insufficient for the applicant (a Cypriot citizen aged 60) and his wife to qualify as persons of independent means. The Tribunal held that for the purpose of assessing the adequacy of the applicant's means the provision of accommodation (whether free or subsidised) and keep by the applicant's son should be disregarded.
Determination
This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against the decision of the Adjudicator (Mr W. Phillips) allowing an appeal to him against the decision of the Secretary of State refusing the respondent permission to remain in the United Kingdom, with his wife, as a person of independent means.
The facts surrounding the respondent's application to remain in the United Kingdom, which are not in dispute, are set forth in the explanatory statement and in the determination of the adjudicator and it is not necessary to repeat them all here. Suffice it to reiterate that the respondent arrived in the United Kingdom on 20.7.76 without an entry certificate and was admitted as a visitor. His wife was already in the United Kingdom. On 12.9.75 the Secretary of State had refused to vary her leave to enter the United Kingdom to enable her to remain as a visitor for 6 months. An appeal against this decision was lodged but it was withdrawn on 30.4.76. The respondent's wife, however, has been granted permission to remain in the United Kingdom pending the outcome of the instant appeal. At the present stage of this matter no question arises as to whether the respondent gained admission to the United Kingdom by deception; the adjudicator found he had not, and there is no appeal against that finding.
We are concerned with paragraphs 35 of HC 79 and 29 of HC 80,2 and the sole issue before this Tribunal is whether or not the respondent, under para 29,
has means under his own control and disposable in this country sufficient to support himself and his dependants for the foreseeable future without working
The adjudicator answered this question in the affirmative and allowed the respondent's appeal to him, concluding his determination by a final paragraph as follows:
It is clear that the appellant's present position is one of reliance upon his children in all respects. If that...
To continue reading
Request your trial