Case No. UKUT-00063-(IAC)

v Entry Clearance Officer [2009] UKSC 16 and determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the context of an objective reading of the structure and wording of the relevant provisions. The references to “partner” in Appendix FM should, as a starting point, be read with reference to the autonomous definition contained in GEN.1.2. unless a different meaning of “partner” applies. A different meaning of “partner” can only “apply” if the wording of Appendix FM so prescribes, or by necessarily implication from the relevant provision. 18. Appendix FM, read as a whole, does not support an interpretation of the term “partner” in paragraph E-LTRPT.2.3(b)(iii) that differs from the autonomous definition in paragraph GEN.1.2. If such a departure from the autonomous definition had been intended then paragraph E-LTRPT.2.3(b)(iii) itself, or some other specific provision in the Immigration Rules, would have expressly said so. By way of example, paragraph E-LTRPT.2.3(b)(ii) specifically provides that a “partner” includes “a person who has been in a relationship with the applicant for less than two years prior to the date of application”. Paragraph E-LTRPT.2.3(b)(iii) in contrast contains no such provision. 19. To the extent that the respondent contends that the words “eligible to apply” in paragraph E-LTRPT.2.3(b)(iii) connotes a meaning different from the autonomous meaning in GEN.1.2., this is to be rejected. If eligibility in the sense of a mere ability to make an application under the partnership route was sufficient to exclude an applicant under paragraph E-LTRPT.2.3(b)(iii) this could lead to “odd outcomes”. The applicant gives an example of a person whose application under the “partner” route could be refused because the relationship was not accepted as genuine, but an otherwise meritorious claim under the “parent” route would simultaneously be refused because the person was deemed “eligible to apply” under the “partner” route. 20. The applicant rejects the respondent’s contention, contained in her Detailed Grounds of Defence, that the “general scheme and structure of Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules” would be undermined by the construction he advances. Although a person who fails to meet the requirements of Appendix FM may, by virtue of paragraph GEN.3.2, be granted LTR as a partner under the 10-year route, GEN.3.2 invites the decision-maker to carry out a residual Article 8 assessment where the substantive requirements of Appendix FM are not met. Although such an assessment is triggered by the provisions of Appendix FM itself, the substantive requirements of the assessment are not confined to the provisions of Appendix FM. Appendix FM demarcates cases which can conceivably succeed under the substantive provisions of the Appendix alone (‘Appendix FM cases’) from those – such as that of the applicant – which cannot succeed under the substantive provisions (‘Article 8 cases’). The applicant’s proposed interpretation is not inconsistent with this distinction in principle. The Family Policy guidance is of no assistance in interpreting the Immigration Rules, as per the ruling in Mahad and