ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Murray IA/15935/2014,  UKAITUR IA159352014
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Farrelly IA/24336/2014,  UKAITUR IA243362014
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
THE SENIOR PRESIDENT OF TRIBUNALS
LORD JUSTICE MOYLAN
| TZ (Pakistan)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
|- and -
|The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Mr Parminder Saini & Mr Baldip Singh Aulak (instructed by MTG Solicitors) for PG
Mr Neil Sheldon (instructed by Government Legal Department) for The Secretary of State for the Home Office
Hearing date: 17 January 2018
Crown Copyright ©
Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President:
a. PG failed to meet the requirements of paragraph (iii) of R-LTRP 1.1(d) of the Rules which requires that applicants seeking leave under the partner route satisfy paragraph EX.1 of Appendix FM. In other words, PG did not have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child who is under the age of 18 in the United Kingdom and who is a British citizen or has lived in the United Kingdom continuously for at least 7 years immediately predating the date of the application. Nor did she provide evidence for the purposes of EX.1 to suggest that there were insurmountable obstacles preventing her or her partner from continuing their relationship i.e. their family life outside the UK;
b. PG failed to meet the requirements of paragraph 276ADE(1) of the Rules in that being an applicant who was over 18 and had lived in the UK continuously for less than 20 years, she had not demonstrated very significant obstacles to her integration into India if she were required to leave the UK; and
c. Having regard to article 8 considerations outside the Rules, there were no exceptional circumstances to grant leave to remain.
a. both cases concern foreign nationals who commenced relationships in the UK when they were well aware that their immigration status was precarious.
b. neither appellant qualifies for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules.
c. neither appeal involves exceptional circumstances to place it in the small class of cases in which leave to remain outside the Rules should have been granted in order to avoid a breach of article 8, and
d. The principles set out in the judgment of Lord Reed in Agyarko dispose of all of the issues in these appeals.
"In general, in cases concerned with precarious family life, a very strong or compelling claim is required to outweigh the public interest in immigration control."
Lord Justice Moylan:
Lord Justice Longmore