Case No. UKUT-00515-(IAC)

2. Following an initial refusal, permission to appeal was granted by a Judge of the Upper Tribunal. Both the grounds of appeal and the grant of permission focus on the new provisions of section 117 A and 1 1 7B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the “ 2002 Act ”), inserted by the Immigration Act 2014 and operative from 2 8 July 2014. As the appeal progressed, permission to amend the grounds was granted. As a result, the Appellants ’ case now telescope s to the following four submissions: (i) Sections 117A and 117B of the 2002 Act apply only to an appeal under section 84(1)(c) of the same statute. As a result, they have no application to this appeal which is brought under section 84(1)(a) and (g). (ii) Insofar as section 117B(4) and (5) of the 2002 Act purport to instruct Judges to attribute “ little weight ” to the considerations specified therein it cannot be thus construed as to do so would be to give effect to a constitutionally impermissible encroachment on the independent adjudicative function of the judiciary. (iii) A private life “ established ”, in the wording and in the context of section 117B(4) and (5) of the 2002 Act , is not to be construed as confined to the initiation, or creation, of the private life in question but extends to its continuation or development. (iv) The adjective “ precarious ” in section 117B(5) of the 2002 Act contemplates, and is restricted to, temporary admission to the United Kingdom or a grant of leave to remain in a category which per mits no expectation of a further grant. In setting forth the four issues to be decided I have, as regards issues (ii) and (iii), preferred my own formulation which, I am confident, is a fair reflection of the slightly different terms in which they were constructed by Mr Malik on behalf of the Appellants. While each of the four issues shall be addressed seriatim , it is necessary to begin with the relevant statutory provisions.