Case No. UKUT-00090-(IAC)

7. The appellant filed a notice of appeal to the First-tier tribunal against the e ntry clearance officer ’s decision. As promised in that decision, an entry clearance m anager reviewed the grounds of appeal and supporting documents. Having done so, the e ntry c learance m anager, in a decision dated 13 November 2015, concluded that the decision of the e ntry clearance officer was correct. It w as in accordance with the law and the immigration r ules ; and the e ntry c learance m anager was not prepared to exercise discretion in the appellant ’s favour . 8. The entry clearance manager then said :- “I have considered the appellant ’s rights under A rticle 8 of ECHR. Article 8 of the ECHR is a qualified right , proportionate with the need to maintain an effective immigration and border control and decisions under the Immigration Rules a re deemed to be compliant with h uman r ights legislation. Although the appellant may have a family life with relatives resident in the UK , I am satisfied that the decision is proportionate under Article 8(2). I note that no satisfactory reason has been put forward as to why the appellant ’s family in the UK are unable to travel to Sierra Leone to be with the appellant . I am therefore satisfied that the decision is justified by the need to maintain an effective immigration and border control. I have also considered whether the particular circumstances set out in the appeal constitute exceptional circumstances which, consistent with the r ight to respect for private and family life contained in Article 8 of the European Convention o n H uman Rights, mi ght warrant a grant of entry clearance to the United Kingdom outside the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Following a thorough assessment of the appeal I am satisfied that there is no basis for such a claim. Given all of the abo v e , I do not consider that the evidential balance has been tipped i n the appellant ’s favour, as I maintain the decision to refuse entry clearance “. 9. At some later point, the appellant travelled to the United Kingdom and was granted temporary admission. She made an asylum claim, which has subsequently been withdrawn.