(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/02570/2019
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Cardiff
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 5 December 2019
On 9 December 2019
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE
NILESHKUMAR BABULAL DAVE
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellant: Mr Rehman, instructed by Lawfare solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Howells, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
In the case of a person who is not liable to deportation, the public interest does not require the person's removal where-”
(a) the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and
(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom
the judge found that there existed no genuine and subsisting parental relationship between the appellant and RW. The appellant argues that it was wrong for the judge to find that there was no parental relationship solely because RW was, at the date of the First-tier Tribunal hearing, on the point of becoming an adult. It is asserted that the judge failed properly to consider the evidence showing the extent of the care provided by the appellant for RW. I find that the ground is without merit. I agree with Mr Howells, who appeared for the Secretary of State, that the judge's finding that the natural father of RW continues to enjoy a parental relationship with her natural father who also acts a 'father figure' for her led the judge to reach a finding which was wholly in accordance with the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Ortega  UKUT 298 (IAC). Part of the headnote of Ortega reads as follows:
As stated in paragraph 44 of R (on the application of RK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Section 117B(6): "parental relationship") IJR  UKUT 31 (IAC), if a non-biological parent ("third party") caring for a child claims to be a step-parent, the existence of such a relationship will depend upon all the circumstances including whether or not there are others (usually the biologically parents) who have such a relationship with the child also. It is unlikely that a person will be able to establish they have taken on the role of a parent when the biological parents continue to be involved in the child's life as the child's parents .
The grounds do no more than to disagree with the reasoned finding of the judge.
Notice of Decision
This appeal is dismissed.
Signed Date 5 December 2019
Upper Tribunal Judge Lane