Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2016-01-04, OA/14206/2013
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 04 January 2016 |
| Published date | 02 September 2016 |
| Hearing Date | 03 December 2015 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Status | Unreported |
| Appeal Number | OA/14206/2013 |
Appeal Number: OA/14206/2013
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/14206/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House, London |
Determination Promulgated |
|
On 03 December 2015 |
On 04 January 2016 |
|
|
|
Before
THE PRESIDENT, THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUM
Between
ARUN DASGUPTA
Appellant
and
ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER OF NEW DELHI
Respondent
Representation
For the Appellant: Mr R De Mello and Mr T Muman, both of Counsel, instructed by JM Wilson Solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr N Sheldon, of Counsel, instructed by the Government Legal Department
DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
-
The Appellant is a national of India, aged 85 years. The origins of this appeal to the Upper Tribunal are traceable to a decision made by the Entry Clearance Officer of New Delhi (the “ECO”), dated 27 June 2013, whereby the Appellant’s application for clearance to enter the United Kingdom as an adult dependant relative under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules was refused. The Appellant’s ensuing appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (the “FtT”) was, by its determination promulgated on 06 August 2014, allowed. The appeal succeeded under Article 8 ECHR. The appeal was dismissed under the Immigration Rules. We shall elaborate on this infra.
-
The procedural developments thereafter may be described as somewhat atypical. First, the ECO, who is represented by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Secretary of State”) sought, and was granted, permission to appeal. The permission Judge, in making this decision, highlighted:“…. the weight which the Judge gives to the rights of the sponsor’s children ….”, continuing:
“The Judge [arguably] erred in his application of the Rules and the jurisprudence relating to the Article 8 rights of the Appellant …..”
At the stage when this order was made the Appellant had an application, undetermined, seeking permission to appeal on the ground that the FtT should also have allowed the appeal under the Rules and decided that the adult dependant relative rule is, at least in part, not in accordance with the law and/or is incompatible with Article 8 ECHR. Next, having learned that the ECO had been granted permission to appeal, the Appellant’s representatives lodged a “cross-appeal” on the same grounds. This elicited a grant of permission to appeal to the Appellant. By way of sketching the contextual framework of these combined appeals, it is appropriate to set out part of the decision of the second permission Judge:
“It seems to me that the Appellant’s submissions, in suggesting that the Upper Tribunal could deal simultaneously with the case as a judgment review (deploying a High Court Judge), has [sic] not only technical obstacles (no such application having been made) but overlooks that a challenge to the vires of the Rules is excluded by the Lord Chief Justice’s Practice Direction governing UT judicial reviews. However, there is some authority for the proposition that in exercising its statutory ‘in accordance with the law’ jurisdiction …. the Upper Tribunal in deciding appeals cannot exclude issues going to vires.”
The scene is thus set.
Decision of the ECO
-
The ECO noted that the Appellant’s application for clearance to enter the United Kingdom had been made as an adult dependant relative under Appendix FM of the Rules. The ECO considered the application under paragraph EC-DR.1.1 thereof, continuing:
“You have applied to join your sponsor in the UK [SD] and you have stated that she provides you with financial support in the form [of] providing you [with] accommodation here in India and payment of all of your utility bills and tax. However, you have not submitted any evidence of any financial support from your sponsor. You have also stated that you require care on a day to day basis due to both having medical conditions ……..
You are aged 83 years and state that you have end stage macular degeneration in both eyes, Glaucoma and Ischemic heart disease ….
From the evidence I am not satisfied that these conditions are so severe that you would both require long term personal care to perform everyday tasks ……
I am …. not satisfied that you require, due to either [sic] age, illness or disability, long term personal care to perform every day tasks. I therefore refuse your application under paragraph EC-DR1.1(d) of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules.”
The decision of the ECO continues:
“Additionally you state that you have employed your domestic help …. for several years and that she currently provides care for you; cooking for you and doing other daily chores. Although you state that only your daughter can provide the care you need, I am therefore not satisfied that you are unable to obtain the required level of care in India. I am also satisfied that the financial support your currently receive from your sponsor will continue and that any care if required could be provided through financial help from her.”
Decision of the FtT
-
The decision of the FtT illuminates the factual matrix of this appeal (which we shall augment infra). The uncontentious facts recorded include that the Appellant is a widower and the sponsor is his daughter, a married lady who has two children now aged 15 and 14 years. The Appellant has been visiting this family with some frequency. His daughter is an NHS Doctor. She has undertaken in writing that she will be fully responsible for the maintenance, accommodation and care of the Appellant in the United Kingdom for a period of 5 years.
-
The appeal to the FtT was pursued on three bases:
(a) The Appellant satisfied the age/illness/disability requirement enshrined in paragraph E-ECDR2.4/2.5 of the Rules.
(b) In the alternative, the impugned decision infringed the Appellant’s right to respect for family life under ECHR.
(c) In the further alternative, the operative provisions of the Rules are incompatible with Article 8 ECHR.
-
The FtT determined the appeal in the following terms:
-
The relevant provisions of the Rules are not “discriminatory, manifestly unjust, made in bad faith or [involving] an oppressive or gratuitous interference with people’s rights …. [and are] not an inherently disproportionate interference with rights to respect for family life”.
-
In individual cases, any interference with the right to respect for family life would be in accordance with the law and pursues a legitimate aim.
-
The Appellant failed to demonstrate that “… the sponsor is unable, with the practical and financial help of the sponsor [sic], to obtain the required level of care in India ….. [and] … does not meet the requirement E-ECDR.2.5 of Appendix FM”.
-
The Appellant’s case satisfied the requirement of “exceptionality”:
“I find that there are such exceptional circumstances here, particularly the fact that there are children that are affected and also the cultural aspects. I find that the decision is a disproportionate interference with the family life of the Appellant and the sponsor and her children and therefore infringes Article 8 ECHR.”
In making this latter conclusion, the Judge explicitly considered section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
Issues of law in this appeal
-
The Secretary of State’s appeal and the Appellant’s cross-appeal raise very different issues, as the following outline confirms:
-
The Secretary of State’s primary case is that the FtT erred in law in concluding that there was family life protected by Article 8 ECHR.
-
It is contended, in the alternative, that the FtT erred in law in allowing the Appellant’s appeal under Article 8 out with the framework of the Rules.
-
By his cross-appeal, the Appellant contends that that the FtT erred in law in dismissing his appeal under the Rules. The contention underlying this proposition is that the relevant provision of the Rules is unlawful as it is ultra vires and/or irrational and/or incompatible with Article 8.
Both parties agreed that the first question raised by the cross-appeal is whether this Tribunal is competent to consider a challenge of this kind. If “yes,” the second question is whether the Appellant’s challenge to the offending provision of the Rules is established. If “yes”, the third question focuses on the consequences which follow, in broad terms the issue of relief or remedy.
The Secretary of State’s Appeal
-
First, we consider whether the finding of family life by the FtT is harmonious with legal principle. In this respect...
To continue reading
Request your trial