Case No. UKUT-00542-(IAC)

[2013] UKUT 00641 (IAC) . Furthermore, there is no challenge to any of the judge’s findings on the basis of irrationality or the disregard of material evidence or the intrusion of immaterial factors. We observe that the presence of any of these vitiating elements could, in principle, lend sustenance to the Appellant’s complaint of apparent bias. However, none is evident. 11. The hypothetical observer would also note the balanced, considered and neutral terms in which the Judge has expressed himself in a series of important passages, beginning at [40] and ending at [53]. It is noteworthy that within these passages the Judge has accurately and adequately summarised the medical and other evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellant. No issue is taken with these assessments or summaries. Furthermore, the language throughout these passages is that of the dispassionate, disinterested adjudicator giving primacy to the requirement of impartiality enshrined in the statutory judicial oath of office. We further consider that the observer would not be troubled by the other passages in the determination highlighted on behalf of the Applicant, noted in [9 ] above, either singly or in combination. These passages embody statements which are unexceptional, considered and balanced. 12. At this juncture, we consider it appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraph, [51] in its entirety: “ While [the daughter’s] desire to care for the Appellant in the UK is natural and understandable neither could have had any legitimate expectation that the Appellant would be allowed to remain unless she was able to bring herself within the requirements of the Immigration Rules. There is a great deal of authority to the effect that the UK is not a retirement home for the rest of the world. ” The immediately ensuing paragraph begins with the following: “ I have not been satisfied that the Appellant would be returned to Nigeria in a state of destitution or that there are compelling and/or compassionate circumstances such that she should be granted leave outside the Immigration Rules. ” The hypothetical reasonable observer would, in our view, find an element of empathy in the passages of the FtT’s determination reproduced above. The observer would further take into account that superior courts have expressed themselves in terms comparable to those of the challenged statement and would readily conclude that the Judge had in mind pronouncements of this genre in the “ retirement home ” sentence in [51]. 13. Such pronouncements a r e exemplified particularly in