This appeal relates to an application lodged by ICS Legal on behalf of the appellant under the Adult Dependan Relative route - referred as ADR, which was then wrongly refused by the Home Office and the First Tier Tribunal agreed with ICS Legal in allowing the immigration appeal.

Full facts of the case and what we did is enclosed. Please note due to data protection, the appellant's name or any relevant details are not enclosed. 

Summary case facts

The appellant was a young women who use to live with her grandmother and was living alone at the date of application. Her family are living in the UK and provides her with financial and emotional care.

We know that the adult dependant relative route application is one of the most high-risk applications and through our experience, we always ensure a good matter is lodged to the Home Office to avoid issues on the appeal, where new matters can arise on the appeal either being adjourned or dismissed. 

The Home Office initial argument sat on the fact that she was not related to her sponsor's albeit documents were given to prove this. Home Office did not further accept she needed personal and emotional care. In refusing the application, Home Office did not accept that the appellant required the level of care and refused to consider the Article 8 ECHR claim. 

Outcome on the First Tier Tribunal

The matter went before the First Tier Tribunal Immigration Judge and the Home Office appointed Counsel to represent their matter. Both the appellant's sponsors were present on the CVP hearing with Shajjad Miah of ICS Legal. The Judge was impressed on the appeal bundle and ASA submitted by ICS Legal. 

In cross examination, the Immigration Judge was happy and impressed by the sponsor's evidence, however Counsel for the Home Office made strong submissions to have the appeal dismissed. 

Shajjad Miah representing the appellant made legal submissions, cross referencing evidences we had put together and demonstrates that she needed both emotional and personal care. The Immigration Judge accepted that both the ADR and Article 8 ECHR requirements were met, however allowed the appeal on human rights grounds to avoid the Home Office challenging the decision. The appeal was allowed on the date of the hearing.