![[2023] UKUT 00163 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
Grounds of Appeal
Grounds of Appeal
The Secretary of State’s grounds of appeal filed with the FtT on 12 May 2022 were not drafted by Mr. Gazzain. The decision of the Judge was challenged on the ground of inadequate reasoning:
When concluding that HL could not internally relocate to Goa, the FtT failed ‘to consider the immigration status of her two adult sons present in the UK, or the ability of them to return with her to India.’
The younger son is without status in the United Kingdom and so the Secretary of State is ‘unclear from the FTTJ’s reasoning why it would be unduly harsh for [HL], accompanied by one or both of her sons, to internally relocate to Goa thereby providing in India the welfare support required in addition to financial support’.
By means of grounds of appeal filed with the Upper Tribunal, dated 29 June 2022, again not drafted by Mr. Gazzain, the Secretary of State relied upon her grounds filed with the FtT and made ‘further additional submissions’:
The decision of Judge Haria was before the FtT.
Judge Haria had found that HL’s younger son, then a minor, could return to India with her. This was a ‘Devaseelan starting point’.
The Judge was aware that by 2022 the younger son was an adult.
There was no ‘clear and explicit concession’ by the Secretary of State that it would now be disproportionate to expect the younger son to return to India with his mother, silence not being a concession.
Whilst HL’s witness statement confirms that the partner of her younger son is pregnant, no detail was given to the son’s immigration status.
It would clearly have been materially relevant for the Judge to consider holistically what family support HL could enjoy in India and this ‘must’ include those unlawfully present in the United Kingdom who ‘have given no basis’ as to why they could not return with her.
The Judge’s conclusion as to there being a lack of family support in India was inadequately reasoned.
The Secretary of State further observed by her grounds:
‘6. The [Secretary of State] was represented by Counsel at the hearing and whilst submissions are recorded as being made on the potential availability of family visits this was likely only informed by the oral evidence [of the elder son] (given [the younger son] appears [not] to have given evidence). Again, however, no concession is recorded that keeping in touch was limited ‘solely’ to visits as opposed to residing with the appellant (or nearby) in India. The [Secretary of State] would respectfully contend that an absence of explicit submissions on this point given the existing Devaseelan starting point cannot excuse an absence of adequate reasoning.’