Automated Summary
Key Facts
The appellant, a 48-year-old Kenyan citizen, overstayed her UK visitor visa since 2004 and made two unsuccessful applications for indefinite leave to remain. She claimed asylum in 2017 after being detained, but her protection claim was refused. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed her appeal on Article 8 grounds, finding her relationship with a refugee partner lacked credibility and her removal was proportionate. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision, concluding the Judge did not commit a material error by not explicitly referencing paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the rules, as her reasoning implicitly addressed the factors required under the rule.
Issues
The central legal issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal Judge made an error of law by not considering paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules, which addresses 'very significant obstacles' to integration in the country of return when assessing an appeal under Article 8 of the ECHR. The Upper Tribunal concluded the Judge's decision was not materially erroneous as she had effectively addressed the relevant factors.
Holdings
The Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal on all grounds. The Judge found no material error of law in the original decision, noting that Judge Pacey adequately considered paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the rules regarding private life and integration obstacles. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant's arguments did not demonstrate a failure to properly apply the law.
Remedies
The appeal was dismissed as there was no material error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal on all grounds.
Legal Principles
The court applied paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the immigration rules, which requires demonstrating 'very significant obstacles' to integration into the country of return. It also referenced section 117C(4) of the 2002 Act and paragraph 339A of the rules, emphasizing the elevated threshold for 'very significant obstacles' as interpreted in cases like SSHD v AK (2016) and Treebhawon (2017). The decision upheld that the Judge properly considered these rules and the factors outlined in the application of article 8.
Precedent Name
- Treebhawon and Others
- SSHD v AK (Sierra Leone)
Cited Statute
- Immigration (Leave to Remain) Rules 2006
- Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
Judge Name
Froom
Passage Text
- "18. There is no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal and the decision shall stand. The appellant's appeal is dismissed."
- "38. She has not sought to challenge the asylum decision nor the credibility findings and, then, it can only reasonably be concluded that the situation in Kenya and her reasons for leaving that country cannot constitute very significant obstacles to her return. 39. Even if I accept the Appellant had broken all ties with Kenya, I note (given a lack of challenge to the asylum findings of the Respondent) that this was a matter of choice in the deliberate knowledge that she was opting to remain in the UK in breach of immigration rules and, on her argument, allowing ties in her home country to weaken."
- "16. Judge Pacey clearly had in mind the factors put forward on behalf of the appellant (her length of residence, the loss of ties, her age, the nature of Kenyan society, her lack of resources and difficulty finding employment) and rejected them. She found the appellant had previously worked for an airline and her age did not put beyond reach the prospect of her finding employment."