Adult Dependant Relative on Human Rights Grounds

Case facts

The Appellant arrived in the UK as a visitor and both the Appellant & Sponsor decided to lodge a human rights application, based on the principles of adult dependent relative, under human rights grounds. Whilst the application are usually applied from outside of the UK, the Appellant did not want to return home and asked the Home Office to apply discretion. The application was refused with full rights of appeal. 

The Sponsor contacted ICS Legal following the refusal and wanted our advice & help on the appeal process. We advised on the best course of action and proceeding on the immigration appeal. Appellant was granted full rights of appeal. Whilst there was some key evidences missing, we advised that those could be presented to the First Tier Tribunal as this was allowable under policy law. 

Outcome of the matter

As part of the appeal process, directions were served by the Tribunal, for both the Appellant & the Home Office to serve appeal bundles prior to the appeal hearing which was scheduled on the 2nd of September 2019.

We advised both the Appellant and Sponsor following a detailed assessment, a list of specified evidences to support the appeal bundle and drafted a number of statements including skeleton argument, which was submitted to the First Tier Tribunal. Once the extensive appeal bundle was prepared by ICS Legal, this was served to all interesting parties prior to the scheduled appeal hearing. 

We relied on expert reports including but not limited to medical evidences. Further to this, we drew the Judge into the family life of the Appellant that she enjoys with her daughter and the rest of the family members in the UK. Evidence of exceptional grounds, whilst not all being unique, were presented to the Judge. 

At the date of the appeal hearing, the matter went before First Tier Immigration Judge Ruth at IAC Taylor House on the 3rd of September 2019. We presented the Immigration Judge with evidences to support the claim that the refusal was unlawful and that the decision reached by the Home Office was not in line with the Immigration Rules. 

The Immigration Judge did cross examine the Appellant and the Sponsor, finding them credible in their statements. We wanted the Judge to hear the impact the removal would have to the Appellant and presented that findings for the Tribunal to hear. The medical evidences did also play a key role towards the consideration of the human rights grounds. The case law of Razgar was one of the few cases we felt, deserved to be mentioned at the hearing, given that the impact of removal will have on to the Appellant as well as the extended family members.

The Home Office turned to the policy of Appendix FM Immigration Rules, however we did not raise that as a point of argument, as the Appellant could not satisfy the ruling and moved the Judge to further consider, the Appellant's private life, referring to Part 7 of the Immigration Rules. The Judge agreed that the refusal does also impact the Appellant's private life. 

The case law of Kamara [2016] EWCA Civ 813 was referred to: 

31. “The idea of “integration” calls for a broad evaluative judgement to be made as to whether the individual will be enough of an insider in terms of understanding how life in the society in that other country is carried on and a capacity to participate in it, so as to have a reasonable opportunity to be accepted there, to be able to operate on a day-to-day basis in that society and to build up within a reasonable time a variety of human relationships to give substance to the individual’s private or family life.”

The First Tier Tribunal Judge agreed that the Appellant had met the threshold of allowing the appeal under human rights grounds and that the decision to remove the Appellant would be unlawful. The decision was not challenged by the Home Office and the Appellant was granted leave to remain under human rights grounds. The appeal was allowed on 11th of September 2019. 

End.