WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77943 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-11-06 11:48:41 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-11-06 11:48:41 [post_content] => There are several examples of past papers made available by the OISC online on their website: The way the exam questions are written has evolved slightly over time and of course immigration law has also changed over time, so the more useful sample papers are the most recent ones.

Preparing for the multiple choice exam

You will have 1 hour and 15 minutes to complete 20 questions. That works out as 3 minutes 45 seconds per question. The pass mark is 65%, which works out as 13 correct answers out of 20.

Understand the syllabus

You do not need to know the whole of immigration law to pass the OISC Level 1 exam. You only need to know certain things. Your guide to what you do and do not need to know is the OISC Level 1 syllabus. Use it as part of your revision to make sure you know what you need to know.

Learn to navigate your materials

You are allowed to take certain materials into the exam room (see above). These can be useful for checking answers or, if you have time, looking up answers. However, you will need to know how to look things up in order to do so within the time you have, and you will therefore need to know roughly where to find things.

Take mock exams

This one is really important. The best preparation you can do is to use the available sample exam papers to do mock exams. Sit in a quiet room, make sure you will not be disturbed, make sure your materials are printed and ready and set a timer. Simulate real exam conditions as far as you can and practice some of the top tips we give you below. The three Free Movement mock exams available to members are closely modelled on recent OISC exams and include a 65% pass mark and a timer for 1 hour 15 minutes. We strongly recommend you use all three of our tests as mock exam exercises.

Top tips

Here are our top tips on maximising your chances of passing once you are in the exam. Read the whole question carefully. Some examinees think they know the answer before reading the whole question but this can cost you dear. Read all the answers carefully. Don’t just settle for the first answer you think is right and then stop reading any further. Read all the answers before you decide which you think is right. This seems obvious to people who are good at exams but some examinees do make this mistake. Eliminate wrong answers. Cross out any answers you are sure are wrong. This increases your chances of picking the right one. Pick the best answer. Sometimes the law isn’t completely clear or there may be some uncertainty about how the question is phrased. Examiners are human and might not have thought of everything. Pick the best one even if you are not 100% sure it is 100% right. Answer the questions you know first. Come back later to questions you are not sure about. Other easier questions might offer some insight into the right answer to a harder question. Make an educated guess. If you are not sure, just guess. You have a 25% chance of getting it right even with no knowledge at all. Watch out for the “not” word. Some questions may ask you to pick a correct answer, but others may ask you to pick which statement is incorrect. Read the questions really carefully. Watch the clock. You have a theoretical 1 hour 15 minutes to answer just 20 questions. That should be loads of time. If you start looking up answers and getting carried away, time can run out, though. Take the easy pickings. It may be quite easy to score say 10 of the 20 marks from relatively easy questions. You only need to score 13. take the easy marks first then come back and try and pick up as many of the harder marks as you can in the time available. Re-read the whole paper. If you can, leave yourself a few minutes at the end to read through the questions and your answers at the end. Once you have gone through the whole paper, something may occur to you that didn’t the first time around. Pick an answer for every question. If you run out of time or simply don’t know the answer, just pick one of the answers as you have a 25% chance of getting it right! [post_title] => Multiple choice test [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => multiple-choice-test [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-06 11:50:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-06 11:50:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/multiple-choice-test/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77831 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-11-05 13:01:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-11-05 13:01:00 [post_content] => It remains possible, at least in theory, for an application (or appeal) to succeed entirely outside the scope of the Immigration Rules. In practice, this is unlikely to arise in practice since the advent of paragraph GEN.3.1, which permits exceptions to be made to the requirements most likely to cause difficulties in a compassionate case which could conceivably succeed on human rights grounds on the basis of Article 8 ECHR. Quick mention for HRA and SSHD capability of waiving any or all requirements of rules and possibility of appeal being allowed entirely outside the rules on basis of human rights. Try and think of an example! [post_title] => Human rights outside the immigration rules [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => human-rights-outside-the-immigration-rules [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-05 13:05:13 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-05 13:05:13 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/human-rights-outside-the-immigration-rules/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77830 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-11-05 12:58:11 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:58:11 [post_content] =>

If an application is successful, the applicant will be granted leave to enter for 33 months or leave to remain for 30 months, but they will only qualify for settlement (indefinite leave to remain) after 10 years. By contrast, applicants who satisfy the requirements of the rules without having to rely on exceptional circumstances can apply for settlement after five years.

Neither category of applicant can have recourse to public funds, but it may be possible to apply to waive this condition in limited circumstances.

If an applicant is granted leave to enter or remain under the “10-year route” they can switch into the “5-year route” to settlement once they meet the relevant requirements.

[su_box title="Example"]

Lando is a British citizen. He met Han in the UK when Han was a student.

Han’s leave expired and he overstayed. Lando and Han have been living together for over two years. Lando works and earns over the minimum income requirement of £18,600 per annum. However, Lando and Han cannot submit an application within the rules, because Han has no valid leave in the UK.

Due to difficulties in returning to his home country to apply for a visa, Han decides to submit an in-country application for leave to remain as Lando’s unmarried partner.

Han relies on exceptional circumstances and the application is successful. He is granted 30 months’ leave to remain and is allowed to work, although he cannot claim benefits. As Han had to rely on exceptional circumstances, he will only be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 10 years.

However, a couple of months after receiving his leave to remain, Han applies again for leave to remain as the partner of Lando. This time he meets all the relevant requirements of Appendix FM because Han has leave to remain as a partner. Therefore he can switch from the 10-year route to the 5-year route to settlement.

His application is made in person at a Premium Service Centre (at time of writing these were being rebranded to “UKVCAS service centres”), and is successful. Han is granted leave to remain under the 5-year route to settlement, and therefore he will only have to extend his leave once before being eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

Assuming instead that Han does not bother to switch, he will have to apply for an extension of leave 30 months after the first grant. This application is granted under the 5-year route, and therefore Han will have to wait a total of 7 ½ years before qualifying for indefinite leave to remain (2 ½ years spent on the 10-year route and 5 years from the grant of his extension of leave application).

[/su_box]

If the application is refused, the applicant will generally have a right of appeal to a judge at the First-tier Tribunal  (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). In the case of applications for leave to remain, the right of appeal can be usually exercised in-country, which means that the applicant does not need to leave the UK while the appeal is pending.

[post_title] => Exceptional circumstances and leave granted [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => exceptional-circumstances-and-leave-granted [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-05 12:58:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:58:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/exceptional-circumstances-and-leave-granted/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77829 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-11-05 12:57:26 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:57:26 [post_content] =>

Unfortunately is very difficult to say which cases will succeed in an exceptional circumstances application, as it really depends on one’s specific situation.

Some guidance is provided by the Supreme Court, in the case of Agyarko [2017] UKSC 11, which considered the appeals of two women who had entered the UK as visitors and overstayed. In both cases they had British partners, and both appeals were dismissed because the women could not demonstrate that their cases raised “exceptional circumstances”.

The court concluded that Appendix FM is compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR and it is up to the Home Office to decide what “exceptional circumstances” and “unjustifiably harsh consequences” mean.

Ultimately, it is always a balancing exercise where on one side lies the applicant’s interest in remaining in the UK with their family and on the other the public interest to remove anyone who does not have a valid visa.

Therefore, if one does not tick all the boxes, it is crucial to provide as much evidence as possible to show that being removed from the UK would be a disaster not only for the applicant, but also for their family members.

Mere inconvenience would not cut it. Having a mortgage in the UK, or a job or some ill relative is probably insufficient. The same goes in cases where removal would bring about economic hardship.

The fact that one entered into a relationship whilst having no visa is unforgivable in the Home Office’s eyes. Being British does not give the right to be in the UK with any partner, and love is not enough to overcome the need to maintain effective immigration control.

[post_title] => Exceptional circumstances in practice [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => exceptional-circumstances-in-practice [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-05 12:57:26 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:57:26 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/exceptional-circumstances-in-practice/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77828 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-11-05 12:56:20 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:56:20 [post_content] =>

Exceptional circumstances in applications for leave to remain are regulated by paragraph EX.1 of Appendix FM.

Paragraph EX.1(a) deals with cases where the applicant has a “genuine and subsisting parental relationship” with a child who is under 18, in the UK and is British or

has lived in the UK continuously for at least the 7 years immediately preceding the date of application.

In these circumstances, the Home Office should grant leave if:

it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK.

Showing what is “reasonable” is somehow easier than to show that there are exceptional circumstances in cases where children are not involved.

Paragraph EX.1(b) regulates cases where

the applicant has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a partner who is in the UK and is a British Citizen, settled in the UK or in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection, and there are insurmountable obstacles to family life with that partner continuing outside the UK.

The test here is higher. It is not sufficient to show that it would not be “reasonable” to relocate abroad, but there must be “insurmountable obstacles” that render family life abroad pretty much impossible.

Paragraph EX.2 defines insurmountable obstacles as:

the very significant difficulties which would be faced by the applicant or their partner in continuing their family life together outside the UK and which could not be overcome or would entail very serious hardship for the applicant or their partner.

[su_box title="Example"]

Obi is a British national of Indian origin. He has been living with Padme for three years and they have a six-month-old baby. Padme is an overstayer from Zimbabwe. Obi has another child who is ten years old named Ben. Ben has special needs, and lives with him and Padme.

Padme submits an application for leave to remain as the unmarried partner of Obi, and relies on paragraph EX.1 of Appendix FM because she has no valid leave.

Padme submits that she cannot go back to Zimbabwe because she looks after Ben so that Obi can work. She also points out that Ben requires medical treatment which would not be available in Zimbabwe.Finally, Obi and Ben are not familiar with Zimbabwe at all, and it would be very difficult for them to integrate.

The application is successful and Padme is granted leave to remain.

[/su_box]

In a Free Movement podcast interview about exceptional circumstances, Gabriella Bettiga provides some other examples of what might be considered insurmountable obstacles. For example, a case where the couple have different religions and would be forced to go to a country where worship in a given faith is banned or discouraged by the authorities there.

[post_title] => Paragraph EX.1: applications for leave to remain only [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => paragraph-ex-1-applications-for-leave-to-remain-only [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-05 12:56:20 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:56:20 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/paragraph-ex-1-applications-for-leave-to-remain-only/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77827 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-11-05 12:54:29 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:54:29 [post_content] => [caption id="attachment_26111" align="alignnone" width="1200"] Rules, rules, rules[/caption]

Exceptions from the financial requirements

There may be situations where the sponsor and the applicant cannot meet the financial requirements for Appendix FM. Applicants must prove that they meet the financial requirements, which include the infamous “minimum income rule”, by sending the Home Office specified evidence (listed in Appendix FM-SE).

If they can’t, paragraph GEN.3.1(1)(b) comes into play. It states that when

it is evident from the information provided by the applicant that there are exceptional circumstances which could render refusal of entry clearance or leave to remain a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because such refusal could result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner or a relevant child; then

the decision-maker must consider whether such financial requirement is met through taking into account the sources of income, financial support or funds set out in paragraph 21A(2) of Appendix FM-SE (subject to the considerations in sub-paragraphs (3) to (8) of that paragraph).

Translated into English, this means that if the sponsor’s income (or the sponsor and the applicant’s income if the applicant is legally in the UK) is below the required threshold or is derived from sources other than those specified in the Rules, they can rely on other sources of support. These other sources of support are listed at paragraph 21(A)2 of Appendix FM-SE:

  1. a credible guarantee of sustainable financial support to the applicant or their partner from a third party;
  2. credible prospective earnings from the sustainable employment or self-employment of the applicant or their partner; or
  3. any other credible and reliable source of income or funds for the applicant or their partner, which is available to them at the date of application or which will become available to them during the period of limited leave applied for.

However, the Home Office will consider these other sources of funds only in cases where refusal of leave would result in “unjustifiably harsh consequences”. So having an uncle who is willing to offer financial assistance is not enough in all cases. One also has to show that a refusal would have pretty serious consequences for the parties involved.

The word “credible” introduces a subjective element in the requirements. This means that the Home Office has to be satisfied that the declared source of income is likely to be genuine and effective. To prove this, is it important to submit good documentary evidence.

[su_box title="Example"]

Jabba wants to bring his wife into the UK from abroad. He cannot meet the financial requirement because he has only been working for two months in the UK. He works at Pizza Hut earning £17,000 per annum.

Previously Jabba was living off his savings which have run out. Jabba spent his last savings on a luxury cruise where he met his wife. But Jabba’s uncle Tiure is willing to provide financial support and provides a written undertaking to that effect, which is sent to the Home Office as part of Jabba’s application, together with a copy of Tiure’s British passport,  bank statements showing substantial funds and a statement confirming his relationship with Jabba.

The Home Office does not dispute that Tiure would be able and willing to provide support. However the visa application is refused because there is insufficient evidence to prove that such refusal would cause unjustifiably harsh consequences for Jabba or his wife.

[/su_box]

Exceptions to other requirements

What if the applicant meets the financial requirements but not some other element of Appendix FM? In this case, they would rely on paragraph GEN.3.2. Whilst paragraph GEN.3.1 deals with financial requirements, paragraph GEN.3.2 provides an exemption from other requirements too.

Paragraph GEN.3.2.(2) states that when the requirements of Appendix FM are not met:

The decision-maker must consider, on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal of entry clearance, or leave to enter or remain, a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because such refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member whose Article 8 rights it is evident from that information would be affected by a decision to refuse the application.

In cases where paragraphs GEN.3.1 or GEN.3.2 apply, one has to look at paragraph GEN.3.3, which states that the Home Office

must take into account, as a primary consideration, the best interests of any relevant child.

“Relevant child” means a person who:

(a) is under the age of 18 years at the date of the application; and

(b) it is evident from the information provided by the applicant would be affected by a decision to refuse the application.

Therefore in cases involving children, the Home Office has to take the child’s best interests into account when making a decision.

[post_title] => Paragraph Gen.3.1: applications for leave to enter or remain [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => paragraph-gen-3-1-applications-for-leave-to-enter-or-remain [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-05 12:54:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:54:29 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/paragraph-gen-3-1-applications-for-leave-to-enter-or-remain/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77826 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-11-05 12:52:11 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:52:11 [post_content] =>

The Immigration Rules consider cases where the sponsor is unable to satisfy one or more of the requirements, and provide that leave to enter or remain can be granted if there are exceptional circumstances.

The meaning of “exceptional circumstances” can be found in various paragraphs of the Rules, which we will look at in later sections. Basically the applicant must show that if the Home Office refuses to grant leave to enter or remain, this would be a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to private and family life), because it would result in “unjustifiably harsh consequences” for the applicant, their partner, child or another family member involved.

This test is a high one. It is not enough to demonstrate that one’s circumstances are unusual or difficult, or that one almost meets the requirements of the Rules. It is necessary to prove that the consequences of a partner visa refusal would be disproportionate and not justified by the public interest, such as that in maintaining effective immigration control.

“Exceptional circumstances” doesn’t exempt you from all the rules

To succeed under the Immigration Rules, an applicant must satisfy suitability and eligibility criteria. Some of these boxes must be ticked even when pleading exceptional circumstances.

Suitability criteria look at the applicant’s character and reasons why they should not be admitted to or allowed to remain in the UK. The majority of these requirements must generally be met even if one makes an application based on exceptional circumstances.

The eligibility requirements look at:

  • the relationship between the applicant and the sponsor,
  • the applicant’s status in the UK (in case of an application for leave to remain),
  • maintenance and accommodation, and
  • knowledge of the English language.

Applicants from countries listed in Appendix T must also undertake a tuberculosis screening in applications to come to the UK.

By making an application on the basis of exceptional circumstances, it is still necessary to show that the relationship between the sponsor and the applicant is genuine. The immigration status, financial and English language requirements don’t need to be satisfied.

The Immigration Rules

The Immigration Rules deal with exceptional circumstances in two parts of Appendix FM, which you can find online here. The first is in the dropdown section called Exceptional circumstances, containing paragraphs Gen 3.1-3.3, These can be used for both applications for leave to enter and in applications for leave to remain. 

The second is in Section EX: Exceptions to certain eligibility requirements for leave to remain as a partner or parent dropdown options. This has two paragraphs, EX.1 and EX.2, which are for applications for leave to remain only.

[post_title] => Introduction to the exceptions [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => introduction-to-the-exceptions [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-11-05 12:52:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-11-05 12:52:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/introduction-to-the-exceptions/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 77026 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-10-19 14:54:22 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-19 13:54:22 [post_content] => [gravityform id="21" title="true" description="true"] [post_title] => Feedback and evaluation [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => feedback-and-evaluation-2 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-19 14:56:44 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-19 13:56:44 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/feedback-and-evaluation-2/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 76993 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-10-19 11:14:55 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-19 10:14:55 [post_content] => Pierre Makhlouf is the Assistant Director at the small charity Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID). BID does some amazing work with immigration detainees to assist them with bail applications and runs a rota for immigration lawyers to assist pro bono. His is an enormously experienced voice in this field and we were lucky to be able to grab Pierre to ask him a few questions about making immigration bail applications. [audio mp3="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Pierre-M-traing-podcast-2.mp3"][/audio] [post_title] => Podcast interview with Pierre Makhlouf [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => podcast-interview-with-pierre-makhlouf [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-22 10:30:56 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-22 09:30:56 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/podcast-interview-with-pierre-makhlouf/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 76889 [post_author] => 6452 [post_date] => 2018-10-16 14:45:08 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-16 13:45:08 [post_content] => The podcast below is an interview and discussion with Pierre Makhlouf of Bail for Immigration Detainees on practical features of an immigration bail application. Pierre touches on the importance of preparation in advance of bail hearings, how to best to frame imminence of removal arguments and the use of official guidance to Home Office decision-makers and tribunal judges. The interview was recorded in July 2018 and is just over 30 minutes long. [audio mp3="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Pierre-M-traing-podcast-2.mp3"][/audio]   [post_title] => Podcast interview with Pierre Makhlouf on immigration bail [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => podcast-interview-with-pierre-makhlouf-on-immigration-bail [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-16 14:45:08 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-16 13:45:08 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/?post_type=course_unit&p=76889 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 76860 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-10-16 12:11:53 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-16 11:11:53 [post_content] =>

The parent must also be

  • Outside the UK
  • Over 18 years of age
  • Able to adequately maintain accommodate themselves and any dependants on arrival
  • Able to speak English to an acceptable level (CEFR A1)
There is no minimum income requirement to meet. There is guidance on what constitutes “adequate” when it comes to maintenance and accommodation.

As with all applicants, they need to make sure they meet the “suitability” requirements for the route. These requirements take the form of a list of factors where an applicant will or may be refused if any of them apply (for example, if the applicant is subject to a deportation order, the application will be refused). 

Bizarrely, the list of suitability factors (at S-EC.1.1.-S-EC.3.2.) has been plonked within the Immigration Rules relating to entry clearance for partners. Again, Home Office guidance includes a section on the suitability requirements.  

The child must be

  • Living in the UK
  • Under 18 years of age
  • Either a British national, or have settled status in the UK

How to make an application

Applications are made by filling out an online application form, and paying a fee of £1,523. On top of the headline fee, applicants in this route also have to pay the immigration health surcharge for use of the National Health Service, which at the time of writing is £200 for each year of the visa which is granted. This visa lasts for two and a half years, so the total immigration health surcharge is £500 in addition to the fee (£200 x 2.5).

Once the application has been submitted and fees paid, you will be invited to book an appointment at your local visa application centre to “enrol biometrics”. This essentially means providing fingerprints and having your photograph taken.

Applicants will also need to print out their online form, sign it, and take it along to the visa application centre along with all supporting documents relevant to their case. From there they will be sent to the Home Office. Some centres now operate a scanning system, where all documents are scanned and sent to the Home Office decision-maker in Sheffield, but other centres do not yet have this system in place and require applicants to send the documents by courier. 

The supporting documents which should be submitted will depend on the facts of your particular case. However, all applicants in this route should submit an Appendix 5 (VAF4A) document which is specifically designed for those entering in this route. 

If you are unable to provide all of the information you would like within the form, it can help to submit a covering letter which explains how you meet the requirements of the Rules, provide a guided tour to the evidence you are submitting, and refer in the form to the letter you are supplying where you have more space. If your application is complex, or you are submitting a lot of supporting evidence, then this is definitely to be recommended.

[post_title] => Other requirements [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => other-requirements [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-16 12:15:07 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-16 11:15:07 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/other-requirements/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 76859 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-10-16 12:11:34 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-16 11:11:34 [post_content] =>

The Immigration Rules permit parents living overseas, who have British or settled children living in the UK, to apply for a visa to come to live with them. In this post we will consider the requirements that a parent applying for a visa in this category must meet in order to make a successful application.

The requirements of the parent route are set out in “Section EC-PT: Entry clearance as a parent of a child in the UK”. This section can be found within Appendix FM, an appendix to the main body of the Immigration Rules. When you click through to Appendix FM, the drop-down menu to access Section EC-PT is confusingly labelled “Family life as a parent of a child in the UK” but it relates to the same route.

The main issues for applicants will be explored in detail below, but in summary, to make a successful application the parent must

  • Meet the relationship requirement with the child
  • Not be in a relationship with the child’s other parent or carer
  • Provide evidence that they are taking, and intend to continue to take, an active role in the child’s upbringing

The most tricky issue in these applications is usually the “relationship requirement” set out at paragraph E-ECPT.2.1-2.4 (unfortunately the Immigration Rules are full of confusing headings like this). By relationship requirement we mean the connection between the applicant parent and the child, but also the relationship between the parent applying for the visa and the child’s other parent if they are still involved in the child’s care. We will deal with both below.

The relationship between applicant parent and child

Parents can either provide evidence that they have “sole parental responsibility” for their child, or they can provide evidence that the British/settled parent (or carer) with whom the child currently lives in the UK is not their partner and that they have “direct access” to their child.

All of these terms will be explored below, but it is worth setting out the requirements at E-ECPT.2.3.-2.4 in full:

E-ECPT.2.3. Either –

(a) the applicant must have sole parental responsibility for the child; or

(b) the parent or carer with whom the child normally lives must be-

(i) a British Citizen in the UK or settled in the UK;

(ii) not the partner of the applicant; and

(iii) the applicant must not be eligible to apply for entry clearance as a partner under this Appendix.

E-ECPT.2.4.

(a) The applicant must provide evidence that they have either-

(i) sole parental responsibility for the child; or

(ii) direct access (in person) to the child, as agreed with the parent or carer with whom the child normally lives or as ordered by a court in the UK; and

(b) The applicant must provide evidence that they are taking, and intend to continue to take, an active role in the child’s upbringing.

Whichever route is relied upon in the application (sole responsibility or direct access), evidence must also be presented which shows the applicant will take an active role in the child’s upbringing.

Who qualifies to be a “parent”?

A quick word on who counts as a “parent”. According to the definition set out at paragraph 6 of the Immigration Rules, it is broader than simply natural (birth) parents, and includes:

  1. the stepfather of a child whose father is dead and the reference to stepfather includes a relationship arising through civil partnership;
  2. the stepmother of a child whose mother is dead and the reference to stepmother includes a relationship arising through civil partnership and;
  3. the father as well as the mother of an illegitimate child where he is proved to be the father;
  4. an adoptive parent, where a child was adopted in accordance with a decision taken by the competent administrative authority or court in a country whose adoption orders are recognised by the United Kingdom or where a child is the subject of a de facto adoption in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 309A of these Rules (except that an adopted child or a child who is the subject of a de facto adoption may not make an application for leave to enter or remain in order to accompany, join or remain with an adoptive parent under paragraphs 297-303);
  5. in the case of a child born in the United Kingdom who is not a British citizen, a person to whom there has been a genuine transfer of parental responsibility on the ground of the original parent(s)’ inability to care for the child.

What does “sole parental responsibility” mean?

The meaning of “sole parental responsibility” was explored in a case called TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): “sole responsibility”) Yemen [2006] UKAIT 00049Although it refers to a previous version of Immigration Rules (you will see the outdated reference to paragraph 297 in the case name), it remains good law:

The test is, not whether anyone else has day-to-day responsibility, but whether the parent has continuing control and direction of the child’s upbringing including making all the important decisions in the child’s life – if not, responsibility is shared and so not “sole”.

The court set out a list of considerations to be taken into account by decision-makers looking at this question. They should be read carefully by anyone making an application where this might be an issue:

  1. Who has “responsibility” for a child’s upbringing and whether that responsibility is “sole” is a factual matter to be decided upon all the evidence. 
  2. The term “responsibility” in the immigration rules should not to be understood as a theoretical or legal obligation but rather as a practical one which, in each case, looks to who in fact is exercising responsibility for the child. That responsibility may have been for a short duration in that the present arrangements may have begun quite recently.
  3. “Responsibility” for a child’s upbringing may be undertaken by individuals other than a child’s parents and may be shared between different individuals: which may particularly arise where the child remains in its own country whilst the only parent involved in its life travels to and lives in the UK.
  4. Wherever the parents are, if both parents are involved in the upbringing of the child, it will be exceptional that one of them will have sole responsibility.
  5. If it is said that both are not involved in the child’s upbringing, one of the indicators for that will be that the other has abandoned or abdicated his responsibility. In such cases, it may well be justified to find that that parent no longer has responsibility for the child. 
  6. However, the issue of sole responsibility is not just a matter between the parents. So even if there is only one parent involved in the child’s upbringing, that parent may not have sole responsibility.
  7. In the circumstances likely to arise, day-to-day responsibility (or decision-making) for the child’s welfare may necessarily be shared with others (such as relatives or friends) because of the geographical separation between the parent and child.
  8. That, however, does not prevent the parent having sole responsibility within the meaning of the Rules. 

It is the concept of “authority” or “control” over a child’s upbringing which is important. Whilst others (for example, relatives) may, look after a child, it may be that they are doing so only on behalf of the child’s parent.

Key evidence of “sole” responsibility

A really key issue will be the evidence of contact between the applicant parent and the carer on important decisions to be taken about the child and his or her upbringing.

In situations where only one parent is in the picture, if that parent can show that he or she has control over the major decisions that affect a child’s life, even from afar, then this will be strong evidence to suggest that they meet the “sole” responsibility test.

The courts suggest it may also be helpful to look at the financial support (or lack of it) provided by the parent to the child or the carers of the child for the purposes of his or her upbringing. The courts specifically mention that its absence may be telling, so this issue should be highlighted — either confirming financial support is given and providing evidence of this, or explaining that it is not and explaining why not. 

[su_box title="Example"]

Peter is a Nigerian citizen, and proud father of Charlie. Charlie’s mum, Patricia, dies when he is 7 years old. Charlie acquired British citizenship via his mother. 

After Patricia’s death, Peter suffers a bout of depression, and returns home to Nigeria to recuperate in his home town. He leaves Charlie in the care of his sister, Aunty Agnes, who works part-time at a tattoo parlour in Seven Sisters.

Whilst Peter is laid low, Aunty Agnes takes all of the major decisions in Charlie’s life, and Charlie has limited contact with his dad. After a period of convalescence lasting a few years, Peter recovers and gets a job working at an oil depot in Abuja.

Peter begins to send money to Aunty Agnes — most of his pay each month, in fact — towards Charlie’s care, and speaks to Charlie on an increasingly regular basis via Skype and on the phone. Peter becomes more involved in the decisions taken about Charlie’s future, and expresses a desire that he take up the trombone and apply to Eton for secondary school.

Whilst Aunty Agnes continues to pick Charlie up from school and take him to football practice, she increasingly refers his questions about whether or not he is permitted to do certain things — get a life-size tattoo of David Bowie’s face on his back, convert to Judaism — to his father. Although she is Charlie’s primary carer, she no longer makes the important decisions in his life.

When Peter makes his application for leave to enter the UK as the parent of a child in the UK, he submits evidence that he has “sole” responsibility for Charlie. This includes

Patricia’s death certificate

Statements from Aunty Agnes and Peter about how decisions have been made in the past about Charlie, the reasons for this (i.e. Aunty Agnes took the decisions whilst Peter was unwell), how this has changed over time, and who makes the decisions now

Emails, text messages, and WhatsApp messages between Peter and Aunty Agnes which confirm the statements made and submitted regarding the way that Charlie’s care has been arranged, and which show Aunty Agnes asking Peter questions about what to do with Charlie

Evidence of communication between Peter and Charlie about these central decisions, preferably in writing (although probably unlikely for younger children) and visits Peter has made to the UK

Other corroboratory evidence concerning the central decisions referred to above or the decision-making process in general (e.g. correspondence between Peter and the admissions office at Eton, letter from Charlie’s primary school confirming that Peter is the person from whom permission is sought for key decisions – e.g. school trips)

Bank statements from Aunty Agnes and/or Peter confirming financial contributions made for Charlie’s upkeep

By submitting this evidence, Peter is able to demonstrate that, although he is based abroad, Aunty Agnes is only looking after Charlie by force of circumstance. It is important, though, that this is properly explained in the application, and sufficient evidence provided.

[/su_box]

What does “direct access” mean?

In cases where sole responsibility cannot be shown, the parent must demonstrate that they have “direct access (in person) to the child, as agreed with the parent or carer with whom the child normally lives or as ordered by a court in the UK”.

The meaning of access rights was explored in JA (meaning of “access rights”) India [2015] UKUT 225 (IAC), although this case pre-dated an amendment to the Immigration Rules which changed the language from “access rights” to “direct access (in person)”.

Whilst “indirect” access to a child by means of letters, telephone calls etc may have previously been sufficient, the Rules now explicitly prohibit this, and require “in person” contact. This may be difficult for practical purposes if the parent is in a different country.

Key evidence of “direct access”

It is important to note that the courts don’t have to be involved for an applicant to meet this requirement. It is possible for the parents/carer to make contact arrangements between themselves. But whatever arrangement is in place, it would be useful from the point of view of a visa application if it were documented in some way.

Evidence might include an email or other type of message from one parent to the other parent/carer, confirming dates when the access will take place, location, duration, activities etc. It might also be contained in a formal document.

Other useful evidence would include details of the access itself, preferably matching up to the formal agreement/arrangements which have been made. So if it was agreed that the applicant parent and the child would spend half-term visiting Disneyland Paris, you might consider submitting with the application plane tickets, hotel bookings in both names (of applicant parent and child), and pictures with Mickey Mouse etc. 

If there has been an access arrangement worked out through the family courts, it will probably be called “contact”. Family lawyers don’t like what for them is the outdated term “access” and would probably scold us for using it here, but that is the language used in the Immigration Rules.

[su_box title="Example"]

Pablo the Amazing is a Russian acrobat touring the UK with Cirque du Soleil. Following a performance at the Royal Albert Hall he meets Pamela, a British citizen.

Roughly nine months later, Pamela gives birth to Chelsea, and after much consideration Pamela decides to tell Pablo, whom she tracked down on tour in Japan.

After recovering from the initial shock and some crisis talks with the other acrobats over several bottles of Saki, Pablo explains that he would like to be involved in Chelsea’s upbringing, and Pamela thinks this would also be a good idea, despite their differences. Pamela agrees to re-register Chelsea’s birth and include Pablo’s name.

Over the following few years Pablo visits the UK on several occasions to see Chelsea, and as she gets older begins to speak to her on Skype and over the phone.

When Chelsea begins school the arrangements become a little more formal. Pablo starts taking Chelsea for holidays during summer and at half-term, and these plans are made in advance via email. Pablo is sometimes able to attend parents’ evenings in between performances. He makes financial contributions to Chelsea’s upkeep where he can.

Pablo eventually hangs up his trapeze and decides that he would like to spend more time close to his daughter. As Chelsea gets older, Pamela agrees that this would be a good idea. Pablo therefore makes an application to enter the UK as a parent of a child. He includes the following evidence in relation to this point

Chelsea’s re-registered birth certificate

Evidence of the care arrangements made between Pamela and Pablo (emails sent between them, and formal documents which confirm the care arrangements)

Evidence of the contact set out in the care arrangements in practice (so if there was a plan for a holiday at half-term in one year, evidence of that holiday actually taking place should be submitted)

Statements from both parents about the circumstances of the birth, their current relationship (i.e. they are not in one), the relationship between dad and daughter and his role in her life, the care arrangements in principle and in practice

Evidence of Pablo’s role in Chelsea’s upbringing (letters from school indicating attendance at parent’s evening, evidence of financial support etc)

Note that it is not necessary for care arrangements to have been ordered by a family court. However, where the relationship between parents is less harmonious than between Pablo and Pamela and the family courts are involved in making care arrangements for the child, evidence of these care arrangements should also be submitted.

[/su_box]

The relationship between applicant parent, and the other parent

As stated in the Home Office guidance on this visa:

The parent route is not for couples with a child who are in a continuing genuine and subsisting partner relationship together. Applicants in this position must apply under the partner route where, or when, they are eligible to do so, or under the private life route. An applicant cannot apply under the parent route if they are or will be eligible to apply under the partner route, including where the applicant is in a partner relationship but the couple have not yet been living together for two years

Essentially, the applicant parent cannot be in a relationship with the parent or carer who looks after the child in the UK.

Couples in other types of applications based on their relationship often have to move mountains to demonstrate that they are in “genuine and subsisting relationship”. By contrast, applicants for this visa should bear in mind that, in this situation, the Home Office might consider the merest hint of civility as constituting a “genuine and subsisting relationship”.

Whilst it is difficult to prove a negative, if an applicant parent enjoys a particularly flirtatious relationship with their ex-partner and mother or father of their child even though they are no longer together, heart emoticons on social media and any other public displays of affection should probably be avoided if possible. If either partner is remarried, or in a new relationship, evidence of this may be useful in showing that there is no longer a “genuine and subsisting” relationship between the parents. 

“Taking, and will take, an active role in child’s upbringing”

Whether making the application on the basis of sole or shared responsibility, evidence must be submitted by the applicant parent to show that he or she is taking, and will take, an active role in the child’s upbringing.

Either way, applicants are likely to have submitted evidence already which goes some way to meeting this requirement. It will be important, though, to provide evidence which looks forward, describing care arrangements in the future and not just those which exist at present.

These might include residential arrangements, where the child and the applicant parent will be living together, or documented visitation arrangements as part of a wider care arrangement plan in the near future. The applicant parent’s vision of the precise role they will play can also be set out in statements from the applicant themselves, from the other parent/carer, and from other relevant third parties, if involved.

[post_title] => Relationship requirements [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => relationship-requirements-4 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-16 12:11:34 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-16 11:11:34 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/relationship-requirements-4/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 76843 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-10-16 10:30:42 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-16 09:30:42 [post_content] =>

How to make an application

If the child is making an application at the same time as their parent, then all of the application steps will be undertaken at the same time as those of the parent. In practice, it is likely that most applications under these rules will be made in this way.

Applications are made by filling out an online application form, and paying the required fee (£1,523 at the time of writing). On top of this fee, applicants in this route also have to pay the Immigration Health Surcharge for use of the NHS, which is £200 for each year of the visa which is granted (again, figures correct at the time of writing). This visa lasts for two and a half years, so the total immigration health surcharge is £500 in addition to the fee (£200 x 2.5).

Once the application has been submitted and fees paid, the applicant will be invited to book an appointment at their local visa application centre to “enrol biometrics”. This essentially means providing fingerprints and having your photograph taken. If a child is applying to join the parent, it is likely that they will need to accompanied by a responsible adult to this appointment.

Applicants will also need to print out their online form, sign it, and take it along to the visa application centre along with all supporting documents relevant to their case. From there they will be sent to the Home Office. Most centres now operate a scanning system, where all documents are scanned and sent to the Home Office decision-maker in Sheffield, although some centres do not yet have this in place and require applicants to send the documents by courier.

The supporting documents which should be submitted will depend on the facts of your particular case.

If you are unable to provide all of the information you would like in the application form, it can help to submit a covering letter. A covering letter can explain how you meet the requirements of the Rules and provide a guided tour to the evidence you are submitting. If your application is complex, or you are submitting a lot of supporting evidence, then this is definitely recommended.

The rest of this note looks at the legal issues which tend to come up most often in these types of applications, and makes suggestions on what evidence might be useful for applicants to get hold of in certain situations.

[post_title] => Immigration requirements [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => immigration-requirements-2 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-16 10:30:42 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-16 09:30:42 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/immigration-requirements-2/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 76836 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-10-16 09:58:35 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-16 08:58:35 [post_content] => [post_title] => Immigration requirements [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => immigration-requirements [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-16 09:58:35 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-16 08:58:35 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/immigration-requirements/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 76809 [post_author] => 23 [post_date] => 2018-10-15 14:50:07 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-10-15 13:50:07 [post_content] => The impact of the 2012 Adult Dependent Relative rules is permanently to separate elderly relatives from their children, or to force the children to leave the UK to care for their parents. This is simply cruel in many cases. The effects are addressed in a detailed piece of research by JCWI: “Harsh, Unjust, Unnecessary: Report on the Impact of the Adult Dependent Relative Rules on Families & Children” (July 2014). Any elderly family member who is living independently and simply wants to come to the UK in their twilight years to join their family will have to wait until they can show that they are no longer physically capable of looking after themselves and unable to access care in their own country.

Rules on dependency

The key provisions most likely to cause problems in an Adult Dependent Relative case are paragraphs E-ECDR.2.4 and 2.5:
E-ECDR.2.4. The applicant or, if the applicant and their partner are the sponsor’s parents or grandparents, the applicant’s partner, must as a result of age, illness or disability require long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks. E-ECDR.2.5. The applicant or, if the applicant and their partner are the sponsor’s parents or grandparents, the applicant’s partner, must be unable, even with the practical and financial help of the sponsor, to obtain the required level of care in the country where they are living, because-

(a) it is not available and there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide it; or


(b) it is not affordable

The key problems here is that
  1. First of all, a very high level of dependency or illness is required.
  2. Secondly, there has to be no person in the home country who can provide the required level of care, including through a private care home or paid visiting or live-in carer.
  3. There is the possibility that there is care theoretically available but the sponsor cannot afford it, but that is unlikely to arise as care costs in many countries are low, the fees for an application under the ADR route are very high anyway and the sponsor has to show that the applicant can be financially maintained in the UK as well.
The effect of these rules is that very, very few dependent relatives qualify for entry. The rules are not a complete bar, however, and as we will see when we consider the case law, the word "reasonably" in the rules can be interpreted as meaning that in some cases care must reasonably be provided by a close relative.

Home Office policy

The Home Office’s guidance to its caseworkers was most recently updated in August 2017, taking into account the judgment of Britcits v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 368(more on that below). The guidance defines “personal care” as requiring assistance with everyday tasks such as washing, cooking or dressing. It sets out a series of examples of cases that would not or might meet the criteria. In practice, though, the Home Office will state in virtually all cases that even if a need for long-term personal care is established and there is no family member available in the country concerned, the family in the UK could and should pay for carers to visit the relative or for the relative to be placed in a care home. The guidance goes on to state that, where the requirements of the rules are not met, the decision-maker must go on to consider
  • Firstly, whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, the ECHR Article 8 right to respect for private and family life is engaged; and
  • If it is, secondly, whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8 because it would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family.
On the first point, the guidance states that “in order to establish that family life exists between adults who are not partners, there must be something more than such normal emotional ties”. If Article 8 is engaged, the decision-maker must assess whether there are “exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8”. The policy document does not provide detailed guidance as to what are exceptional circumstances except that they are
circumstances in which refusal of the application would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the individual or their family such that refusal would not be proportionate under Article 8.
It goes on to say that
“Unjustifiably harsh consequences” are ones which involve a harsh outcome(s) for the applicant or their family which is not justified by the public interest, including in maintaining effective immigration controls, preventing burdens on the taxpayer, promoting integration and protecting the public and the rights and freedoms of others.
More detailed guidance can be found in the Immigration Directorate Instructions on Family Life as a Partner, which is also discussed in this blogpost. What is clear is that it is a high threshold and the Secretary of State will rarely consider that this test is met.

Case law

There is little case law on the interpretation of the adult dependent relative rules but the most significant clearly is the Britcits case mentioned earlier. You can read a full write-up of that decision, but in summary: the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge to the rules but found that they could be interpreted more generously than had been argued. In particular, it held that the question of whether care can “reasonably” be provided allows for arguments about the emotional needs of the relative in question.
In particular, rejection on the basis of the availability of adequate care in the ADR’s home country turns upon whether the care which is available is reasonable for the ADR to receive and of the level required for that applicant. Contrary to the submission of the appellant, those considerations are capable, with appropriate evidence, of embracing the psychological and emotional needs of elderly parents.
If seeking to advance human rights arguments, the key case on family life between adult dependent relatives is Kugathas v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 31, which specifies that more than the normal emotional ties must be shown even to establish that there is a family life in the first place. This should however be read in light of the more recent judgment in Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 630, which is also discussed on Free Movement. It may also be useful to refer to the case of Kaur (visit appeals; Article 8) [2015] UKUT 487 (IAC). The appellant was the 83-year-old widowed mother of the sponsor. She wanted to visit her son and grandchildren, who had lived with her until recently, at their home in the UK. Although it is a visit visa case and it failed on its facts, it is an example of the Upper Tribunal finding that family life was engaged between an adult child and his parent. On proportionality probably the most helpful case to reference is ZB (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 834, in which the Court of Appeal demolished a series of errors committed by the tribunal and urged a holistic approach to the assessment of private and family life.

Mandatory evidence

There are also mandatory evidential requirements specified in Appendix FM-SE:
33. Evidence of the family relationship between the applicant(s) and the sponsor should take the form of birth or adoption certificates, or other documentary evidence. 34. Evidence that, as a result of age, illness or disability, the applicant requires long-term personal care should take the form of: (a) Independent medical evidence that the applicant’s physical or mental condition means that they cannot perform everyday tasks; and (b) This must be from a doctor or other health professional. 35. Independent evidence that the applicant is unable, even with the practical and financial help of the sponsor in the UK, to obtain the required level of care in the country where they are living should be from: (a) a central or local health authority; (b) a local authority; or (c) a doctor or other health professional. 36. If the applicant’s required care has previously been provided through a private arrangement, the applicant must provide details of that arrangement and why it is no longer available. 37. If the applicant’s required level of care is not, or is no longer, affordable because payment previously made for arranging this care is no longer being made, the applicant must provide records of that payment and an explanation of why that payment cannot continue. If financial support has been provided by the sponsor or other close family in the UK, the applicant must provide an explanation of why this cannot continue or is no longer sufficient to enable the required level of care to be provided.
An application made without the specified evidence will always be refused. Any attempted appeal is also very likely to fail for this reason, so it is very important to include the specified evidence with the application. [post_title] => Proving dependency [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => proving-dependency [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-10-16 10:24:35 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-10-16 09:24:35 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.freemovement.org.uk/module-unassigned/proving-dependency/ [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => course_unit [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )