Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: VA/00471/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Determination Promulgated
On 6th October 2016
On 7th October 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER

Between

SUNABAN BIBI
[ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE]
Appellant
And

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - New Delhi
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: unrepresented, her niece Ms Parveen spoke on her behalf
For the Respondent: Ms R Peterson, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. Mrs Bibi, date of birth 7 March 1932, applied for a visit visa to visit her younger sister in the UK. The application was refused on the ground that the ECO was not satisfied that she was genuinely seeking entry for the purpose and period stated or that she intended to leave the UK on completion of the visit. Mrs Bibi appealed on the grounds that the decision breached her Article 8 grounds. Her appeal was heard on 19th January 2016 and dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal for reasons set out in a decision promulgated on 25th January 2016.
2. Mrs Bibi sought and was granted permission to appeal on the grounds that it was arguable:
(a) The First-tier Tribunal judge considered the evidence at the date of the hearing and not at the date of the application;
(b) failed to have adequate regard to the core family life (Article 8) that existed between Mrs Bibi and her sister in the UK.
3. The grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal stated that the refusal was a breach of Article 8. In the review of the ECO decision by the ECM, the ECM states that there was no explanation other than assertion that the ECO had failed to take into account the UK sponsor's ill health and the genuine reason for sponsoring Mrs Bibi and no explanation how the decision to refuse entry clearance interferes with family life given that the sponsor had visited Bangladesh in March 2014, some 7 months earlier.
4. In the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal the sponsor's niece gave evidence that the sponsor had suffered immensely on her last visit to Bangladesh such that she could not face the journey again. It was submitted that the lack of face to face contact, given the ages, health and personal circumstances of the sponsor and the appellant, the failure to grant entry clearance was a disproportionate interference with family life between the sponsor and the appellant.
5. Although before me Ms Parveen explained that the appellant had brought up her mother (the sister whom the appellant sought to visit), that there were considerable health problems for the sister in the UK and that their relationship was very close, this was evidence that was simply not before the ECO when the decision was taken. Ms Parveen said that she and her sister had provided significant material and evidence for transmission to the ECO and they could not understand why it had not been sent. On the basis of the documents before me, the evidence the appellant relied upon, through her niece's evidence to the First-tier Tribunal (and to me) that evidence was not before the ECO. In the absence of that information the ECO could not have come to any conclusion other than that which he reached. There was simply inadequate evidence before the ECO to sustain a finding that the refusal of entry clearance was a breach of Article 8.
6. There is no material error of law in the decision by the First-tier Tribunal.
Conclusions:
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I do not set aside the decision

Date 6th October 2016
Upper Tribunal Judge Coker