The appeal was heard in person at the Birmingham Civil Justice Centre, on the 28^th March 2024 and this went before the Honourable Judge Anthony. 

In short, the appellant entered the UK as a visitor and had come to visit her family in the UK. Her daughter was a British citizen, and the appellant had visited the UK a number of times, prior to staying in the UK this time round. 

The appellant and her sponsor’s attended in person for the hearing, before the Immigration Judge and the Home Office. The Judge asked the Home Office to set out the legal challenge and grounds as to why the appellant should be removed from the UK & that her application for leave to remain should fail. ICS Legal put forward our challenge, including the matter of TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109.

The appeal was to consider a number of key elements, Article 8 ECHR played its part, whether the appellant would face very significant obstacles if relocated back to Russia and the impact the refusal will have to the family members in the UK. The emotional and financial dependency will also play its part in consideration. 

The Judge considered the appeal matter of Ghising (family life - adults - Gurkha policy) Nepal [2012] UKUT 160, as the matter for age, health and vulnerabilities as part of the consideration. The appellant matter was put forward, including her medical, personal and emotional ties to the UK.

The expert reports presented to the Judge was given due consideration. It was important to note that the Judge accepted both the oral and documentary evidences from the appellant, by accepting that the appellant was far better in terms of emotional and health-wise being with her family. 

The Judge further considered that given the sponsor could not maintain the consistent travels due to the restrictions, including work commitments. A number of the factual matrix was considered by the Judge and found that the sponsors could not maintain the travels to see the appellant; thus interfering with the family life. 

It was further considered that the appellant did not have any strong social or family ties, placing her in isolation and the Judge considered those factual details. Further consideration was made by the Judge on the availability of medical care.

The starred case law of Treebhawon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 13 (IAC), was considered by the Judge, as that looked at the legal test of “‘very significant obstacles” and the Judge found through the oral and documentary evidences, the appellant did meet that threshold. 

The Judge allowed the appeal, and the Home Office have not challenged against that decision. The appellant was granted leave to remain for a period of 30 months.