The hearing
17. At the outset, both representatives confirmed that they were unaware of any authority or indeed any other materials dealing specifically with the core question identified at the start of our decision. 18. Despite their dispute as to the correct interpretation of para 352A, both parties are agreed that our answer to the core question will be determinative of the Claimant’s appeal. Mr Singh accepted that if we were to favour the Claimant ’ s interpretation and to conclude that all criteria under para 352A were met, nothing else need be shown in order to succeed on Article 8 grounds. Conversely, Mr Khan accepted that if our conclusion on the interpretative question went the other way, there were no other features of the Claimant ’ s case which would permit him to succeed. 19. Mr Singh relied on the grounds of appeal, as presented to the First-tier Tribunal and then to the Upper Tribunal in amended form. He submitted that the judge had failed to grapple with para 352A (iii), as s he should have, given the conjunctive “and” at the end of sub-para (ii). He acknowledged the absence of any requirement that a relevant relationship must have “existed” (whatever the precise meaning of that term may be) “immediately” prior to the refugee’s departure. 20. Mr Singh’s positive arguments on the interpretive question were as follows. First, it was submitted that, adopting the natural and ordinary meaning interpretive approach, the term “existed” in para 352A (iii) was to be read as “subsisted” , in the sense that the relevant relationship held an emotional quality prior to the refugee’s departure. 21. Second, a contextual approach should be adopted. Reference should be had to other provisions within para 352A and 352D. It was submitted that sub-para (iii) had been inserted into para 352A for a reason: it must have some utility. Given that sub-para (ii) already included a temporal requirement that the relevant relationship was present prior to the refugee’s departure, sub-para (iii), which also includes a temporal condition, must bring something more to the table, as it were. Otherwise, the requirement would be otiose. In Mr Singh’s submission, this additional factor was that the relationship in question must have been subsisting at the relevant time, and the term “existed” should be interpreted accordingly. T he requirement in sub-para (ii) that a cohabiting “relationship akin to marriage or a civil partnership” must have “subsisted” for two years or more prior to the departure of the refugee sponsor, supports the ECO ’s interpretation of sub-para (iii). If a requirement of subsistence was imposed upon those in a cohabiting relationship, those in a marriage or civil partnership should be treated similarly. 22. During the course of his submissions, Mr Singh acknowledged that recourse to the Refugee Convention may be appropriate when interpreting para 352A(iii) . 23. Mr Khan made the point that the term “subsisted” could easily have been used in sub-para (iii) if that had been the intention. He submitted that the term “existed” had what he described as a “purely factual” meaning.