Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

[2025] UKUT 00352 (IAC)

Fecha: 29-Jul-2025

Disposal

Disposal

77.

As to disposal, by virtue of section 12(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Upper Tribunal may make any decision which the FtT could make if it were re-making the decision and may make such findings of fact as it considers appropriate. The remaining issues are narrow. We accept, as Mr Wood submits, there is limited fact-finding required and that the appropriate course is for the decision to be remade in the Upper Tribunal.

78.

For the avoidance of doubt, the following findings of the FtT are preserved:

The UK recognises adoption orders effected under the law of India as per the Adoption Order 2013 as ‘law’ is therein defined.

The adoption of the Appellant was valid in India and conformed to the conditions laid down in the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act 1956.

The Appellant could not satisfy the requirement in para. 310(vi)(a) of the Immigration Rules.

The Appellant did satisfy the alternative requirement in para. 310(vi)(b) of the Immigration Rules.

The Appellant did not satisfy the requirement in para. 310(ix) of the Immigration Rules that she was adopted due to the inability of her original parents to care for her. There was a genuine transfer of parental responsibility to the adoptive parents.

The Appellant satisfied the requirement in para. 310(x) of the Immigration Rules.

The adoption of the Appellant was not one of convenience arranged to facilitate her admission to the UK, see para. 310(xi) of the Rules.

The Appellant did not meet the requirements for leave to enter the United Kingdom as the adopted child of a parent or parents present and settled or being admitted for settlement in the United Kingdom.

For the purposes of Article 8, the Appellant has established a family life with the Sponsors. The decision to refuse the Appellant leave to enter has consequences of such gravity as to engage the operation of Article 8. The refusal of entry clearance presents some interference with family life in the sense that it prevents the continuation of family life with the Sponsors in the United Kingdom. The interference is in accordance with the law, and the interference is necessary to protect the legitimate aim of immigration control.

79.

The issues to be determined when the decision is remade in the Upper Tribunal are limited to:

The best interests of the Appellant; and

ii)

Whether the decision to refuse leave to enter is proportionate to the legitimate aim of immigration control.