Case No. UKUT-00197-(IAC)

46. In his determination, the First-tier Tribunal Judge commenced his findings by stating in paragraph 10: I n submissions the appellant’s representatives accepted that the appellant could not meet the requirements of paragraph 316A. The appellant has not disputed that the adoption in Jamaica is not recognised in the UK under the 2013 Order. The current version of the Order still does not include Jamaica, and adoption orders in Jamaica remain unrecognised in the UK. Similarly Jamaica is not a party to the Hague Convention which is a requirement of paragraph 316, through the application of paragraph 316D. I find that the appellant does not reach the requirements of paragraph 316A, as he is already subject to an adoption order which is not recognised under the 2013 Order and from a country which is not party to the Hague Convention. 47. This paragraph displays a misunderstanding of the circumstances in which a child may be admitted to the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption. It is, of course, true that Jamaica was not and is not a party to the Hague Convention. It is also true that the adoption affected by CM in accordance with Jamaican law is not an ‘overseas adoption’ recognised by the United Kingdom. The fact that such an adoption has taken place, however, does not operate as a bar to the appellant satisfying the requirements of paragraph 316A which was the reason advanced by the judge for stating that the requirements of paragraph 316A were not met. 48. It is also clear that, as the judge record s in paragraph 11 of the determination , the submissions made by the appellant’s representative that the arrangement with the sponsor amounted to a de facto adoption were also misplaced. 49. Further, the judge appears to have misunderstood the significance the assessment made by the adoption agency. In paragraph 8 of the determination, the judge records : The sponsor had to complete a Home Study and had to be assessed in the UK by a UK social worker with her suitability to adopt. The findings of the UK social worker were then sent to the overseas country as part of the adoption process [in Jamaica ].… 50. We consider that this suggests the First-tier Tribunal considered the accredited UK adoption agency’s function was to provide evidence in support of the Jamaican adoption. The Judge did not, therefore, engage with the process under which the adoption agencies report was directed towards the UK government through the medium of the DfE certifying CM as eligible to adopt the appellant. 51. For the reasons we have stated, whilst it is understandable why the First-tier Tribunal Judge was confused as to the relevance of the adoption agency’s report and the Certificate of Eligibility since these matters were not brought to her attention, this does not operate to prevent the determination being legally flawed. Inevitably, once the requirements of the Immigration Rules had not, according to the First-tier Tribunal, been met, the Article 8 claim was bound to fail.