Case No. UKUT-00129-(IAC)

58. T he appellant was born , and has lived most of her life , in the United Arab Emirates. 59. The appellant is in a genuine and subsisting relationship with her partner who is a British citizen . They have a daughter, born on 6 September 2016 , who is a British citizen. 60. The appellant lives with her partner and child as a family unit. Her partner has two (British citizen) teenage sons from a previous relationship who he sees regularly (primarily on weekends and holidays). The appellant has developed a relationship with her partner’s sons. 61. The appellant travelled to the UK from the United Arab Emirates in May 2 016 (whilst pregnant with the child of her British citizen partner) as a visitor . Their relationship was subsisting at the time. The appellant claims that her intention was to return to the United Arab Emirates and it is only because of difficulties with the pregnancy, and then with her child’s health , that she did not do so . However, s he did not adduce any medical evidence to support her claim to have been unable to return to the United Arab Emirates either whilst pregnant or shortly after the child was born. Nor has she explained why she did not return to Dubai prior to her United Arab Emirates residency visa expiring in order to avoid a situation where her only option , other than to remain in the UK, would be to return to Pakistan , where she claims she would be without any support or accommodation . We have no doubt, and find as a fact, that the appellant entered the UK with the intention of giving birth and remaining with her partner perman ently. We also find that she had this intention when she completed the 2016 application form in which she stated she only wished to remain in the UK for a further six months. 62. The appellant has never lived in Pakistan . However, along with her immediate family , she has maintained a connection to the country , visiting on several occasions . We find it far more likely than not that on those visits she stayed with family, rather than in hotels. We also find – in the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary – that it is more likely than not that she is familiar with the language, culture, religion and societal norms of Pakistan, having grown up in a Pakistani family and within the Pakistani community in Dubai . 63. For the reasons explained above, t he evidence we heard from the appellant and her partner about the presence of (and her relationship with) extended family in Pakistan was not credible. We find it more likely than not that the appellant has - and maintains a relationship with - extended family in Pakistan . 64. The appellant’s partner works as a carpet fitter. He works under a “zero hours contract” taking on work when available. The evidence indicates that he has extensive experience in the field, having previously been a carpet shop proprietor. In the 2018 application form the appellant indicated that her partner’s income was at a level that would be sufficient to meet the financial eligibility requirements under Appendix FM. Her (and her partner’s) oral evidence , however, was that his income is substantially below that level and it would not be possible for him to meet the threshold. We have explained above why we are unable to give any weight to the oral evidence we heard on this issue. We find it more likely than not that the appellant’s partner’s current income meets the financial eligibility threshold but that even if it does not he could in a short space of time increase his income (by, for example, taking on more carpet fitting work from different sources) in order to meet the threshold. 65. Taking into consideration the time it is likely to take to compile the necessary evidence for an entry clearance application, to secure an appointment in Pakistan, and to receive the decision once the application is made, we find that the appellant will be out of the UK (in Pakistan, awaiting a grant of entry clearance) for between 4 and 9 months. 66. The appellant is the primary carer for her daughter. Given her partner’s work commitments and the child’s young age, it is more likely than not that the appellant w ill bring her daughter with her to Pakistan if she is required to leave the UK. 67. The appellant’s daughter is a healthy child with no developmental or other problems. 68. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant has any health difficulties and therefore we find that she does not have any physical or mental health problems. E.