Case No. UKUT-00629-(IAC)

7. The FtT allowed the Respondent’s appeal. The basis upon which the judge did so is discernible from the following passages: “ [104] …. I find that it would be unduly harsh for the child to remain in the UK without the Appellant …. [107] I come to the conclusion that at this time and on the evidence now before me there are very compelling reasons over and above those in paragraphs 399 and 399A …. [109] In the circumstances of this case, the separation of the Appellant from his children and extended family is in the public interest but the strong (and very weighty) public interest in this case is outweighed by the Appellant’s interests and those of the children concerned and his partner …. [110] I find that the Appellant meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules namely that there are very compelling reasons over and above the matters listed in paragraph 399 and 399A which outweigh the public interest in this case. ” Under the rubric of Article 8 ECHR , the Judge’s analysis and conclusions continued, containing the following salient passages: “ [121] …. It is difficult to see that a decision under the Immigration Rules in this case would justify a different conclusion in respect of Article 8 …. [122] It is my view that the proportionality considerations under the Immigration Rules and outlined above cover all the factors which the Tribunal should consider under Article 8 …. [124] In all the circumstances of this case, the separation (ie deportation) of the Appellant from the children and his partner is in the public interest but this is outweighed by the Appellant’s interests and those of the children (including step children and wider extended family) and his partner … [126] In all the circumstances and for the reasons already given above I consider that the decision of the Respondent is disproportionate … [128] Therefore the Appellant meets the exceptions set out in section 33 (UKBA 2007). ”