United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal

APPEAL No. [2002] UKIAT 02238

VV-01186-2002

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Date of hearing: 27/05/2002

Date Determination notified: 28 June 2002

Before
Mr K Drabu (Chair) Between

MARY OLAYINKA OGUNKOLA	APPELLANT
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department	RESPONDENT

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria and seeks leave to appeal against the decision of an Adjudicator (Mr K F Walters) who dismissed the applicant's appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse her entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom for a family visit.
2. The grounds of appeal submitted in support of the application for leave are attached.
3. The Tribunal has given careful and anxious consideration to the decision of the Adjudicator in the context of the grounds of appeal and also generally.
4. In the opinion of the Tribunal this case merits further consideration.
5. In the circumstances leave to appeal is granted.
6. Having granted leave, in accordance with the Practice Directions issued by the President, I shall now consider the substantive merits of the appeal.
7. The Tribunal has received further evidence in the form of a detailed statements from the sponsor, Mr Emmanuel Ogunkola and the appellant. The grounds of appeal have drawn the Tribunals attention to the decision in Blair (1997) which was promulgated on 21 July 1980. In the opinion of the Tribunal the comments made in Blair are still valid. As the Tribunal said in Blair if lack of economic incentive to return to the country of origin were sufficient to found a refusal of visit application "then no person living overseas whose standard of living there was lower than that prevailing in the United Kingdom could ever come on holiday here or visit relations settled in this country. That is not the law". I agree with and adopt that comment.
8. I find that in this case the appellant's emotional and family ties with Nigeria are strong. I find that she has been honest and straight forward in her responses to the questions asked of her. I believe that if the Adjudicator had had the benefit of the statements from the sponsor and the applicant as I have had, his decision would have been different.
9. I allow this appeal and direct that the applicant is granted entry clearance for a visit without delay.

K Drabu