IA/23236/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 30 Jan 2017
• Promulgation date: 7 Feb 2017
• Publication date: 11 Oct 2021
• Last updated on: 11 Oct 2021

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/23236/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 30 January 2017
On 07 February 2017




Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HILL QC

Between

Mr Tufail Islam
(anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms A Oji, Counsel, instructed by Bukhari Chambers Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Whitwell, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal from the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lloyd which was promulgated on 19 April 2016. The appellant is a national of Pakistan who applied for a residence card as the spouse of the sponsor. The issue which fell to be determined by Judge Lloyd was whether the marriage which they contracted was one of convenience.

2. The judge heard oral testimony from both the appellant and the sponsor and had in mind the reasons that had been set out in the Secretary of State's refusal letter. The legal approach under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was set out by the judge and there was no criticism made before me as to that legal approach.

3. The judge then assessed the evidence which was before the Tribunal, both the oral testimony and the limited documentation and ran through the various factors which in the judge's consideration caused concern as to the genuineness of the marriage. Significant reference was made to the timing of the marriage, the difference in age, the speed at which the relationship was said to have developed, the fact that though said to be a practising Muslim the initial marriage was of a civil nature although followed some months later by a Muslim ceremony. The judge looked at joint bank accounts, correspondence and so on. The judge also looked at inconsistencies in testimony of the witnesses, particularly with regard to wedding rings.

4. The conclusion the judge came to is at paragraph 26:

"I take all of this together and in the round. The unusual and dramatically quick timing, differences in age, the anomaly of the appellant marrying in a civil ceremony despite the importance he attached to the religious aspect, and the discrepancies in account add together for me to find on balance that the appellant's motivation was obtaining the right to remain in the United Kingdom, and accordingly I find that the marriage was one of convenience under Regulation 2."

5. In the course of her submissions to me Ms Oji has not identified any error of law in relation to that determination. She has indicated that the judge appeared to attach weight to certain factors and not others and that judge at some points applied a benefit of the doubt to the appellant and at other times not.

6. There is no substance in any of those criticisms. The determination is clear, lucid and thorough. It is perfectly possible to read from it the precise reasons the judge had to coming to the clear conclusions which were articulated. It is well-established that the weight to be given to different relevant features is entirely a matter for the First-tier Tribunal and not something which the Upper Tribunal should interfere with. Though Ms Oji, on her client's behalf, may be dissatisfied with the result there is no error of law in the determination and this appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is dismissed.

Signed Mark Hill Date 7 February 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hill QC