The appellant lodged a visa application as the parent of a British child to join her child in the UK and the sponsor who is the other parent provided evidences to confirm their shared parental rights. 

Home Office when considering the application did not consider the personal circumstances and used the previous visa refusal, namely the visit visa as the grounds to further refuse this application. In their claim, it was stated that the appellant and sponsor was in a relationship. Both the appellant and sponsor was not given the opportunity to provide further details and the application was refused. 

The sponsor made contact with ICS Legal following the refusal and after a detailed consultation, we recommended that an appeal should be lodged. ICS Legal filed a detailed appeal bundle with an appeal skeleton argument but this was not reconsidered in favour of the appellant.

Importantly we demonstrated that the appellant had already met both the English language and financial requirements, so there was no reasons why, if they was in a relationship, would not apply for a partner visa. 

The matter went before the First Tier Tribunal Judge Turner on the 31st January 2024, and the sponsor attended, as the appellant was not permitted to give evidence from abroad. 

In the opening matter, the Judge sat out the legality of the matter including the Home Office reasons for refusal and their respondent's review. Home Office filed for an adjournment on the day of the hearing, however ICS Legal refuted the acceptance because this was a matter related to the best interest of the children, as well as the sponsor's both physical and mental health issues. The Judge agreed to our submissions and proceeded with the immigration appeal. 

Judge Turner denied the Home Office application to adjourn. Importantly we also pointed out that the application was filed on the 7th  May 2023, refused on the 9th of June 2023 and it had taken the matter more than 6 months to go before the Judge. 

The legal framework of challenges was placed before the Judge, by both parties and the Judge considered the test as applied by relevant policies and case laws. 

In oral evidence from the sponsor, the Judge found him credible and accepted the true accounts of the circumstances. It was important part of the appeal, as oral evidences can impact an appeal. ICS Legal took the Judge through the grounds of refusal and put forward explanations including reference to the evidence bundle, to demonstrate how the Home Office have erred in the decision making. 

The Judge found ICS Legal helpful in explanations, setting out the correct Home Office guidances and immigration rules, relevant to the appellant's matter. It was noted that at both refusal and review stage, both Entry Clearance Officer & Home Office Presenting Officer have failed to consider those. 

It was found that the appellant was not in a relationship with the sponsor. The Judge further agreed that the sponsor's third party financial support is accepted including adequate accommodation. 

The Judge agreed that Article 8 ECHR proportionality test was engaged and that the Home Office erred in the decision making. The appeal was allowed. Following the appeal, Home Office did not appeal against the decision and the appellant was granted leave to enter as a parent of a British child. 

End.