Error of law decision
66. We now turn to consider the effect of our conclusion on the correctness of the judge’s decision. 67. There is an error in the sense that the judge failed to address para 352A(iii) at all. However, that error was not material to the outcome of the appeal. Sh e was right to have concluded that the Claimant ’ s estrangement from the Sponsor prior to the latter’s departure from Pakistan in 2012 was “not strictly relevant” to the satisfaction of the Rule. It was sufficient for the Claimant to show that he had been married to the Sponsor at all material times and that that relationship was currently “genuine and subsisting”. 68. There has never been any suggestion by the ECO that anything more than a satisfaction of para 352A needed to be shown for the Claimant to have succeeded in his appeal before the judge. The allowance of that appeal “on human rights grounds” was, on the facts as found, wholly correct.