NW (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This is a renewed oral application for permission to appeal in respect of an immigration decision by the Upper Tribunal. The matter relates to an application for leave to remain as an adult based on grounds relating to dependency in respect of parents who are resident within the jurisdiction.

The law in respect of the test to be applied has been recently revisited and restated in line with earlier authority by this court in Singh v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 530. Putting it very shortly, it is necessary in a case where a claim to remain is based on Article 8 and family life in respect of an adult child for it to be shown that there are more than normal emotional ties involved.

In this case the Upper Tribunal, whose decision is the relevant operative decision, properly directed itself in law and found on the facts that, although there were ties between the appellant and his parents, they were not of a kind such as to found a good claim to remain based on Article 8.

The application comes before this court as an application for permission to bring a second appeal. Accordingly, it is the second appeal test which is applicable. I have to ask myself whether the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.

I am grateful to Mr Paramjorthy, who, though instructed at the last minute, helped me by managing to get a written statement to the court yesterday evening. The application had been refused on the papers by Sullivan LJ. His view was that there was no arguable error of law in the conclusion reached by the Upper Tribunal, still less was this a case which satisfied the second appeal test.

Mr Paramjorthy realistically recognises that this is not an appeal which raises an important point of principle or practice in view of the recent affirmation of the relevant principles in Singh. Nonetheless, he sets out, succinctly and as persuasively as possible, arguments which he says should persuade this court that there is some other compelling reason for this court to entertain the appeal.

Attractively though the points are put, I have come to the conclusion that it cannot be said that there is some other compelling reason for this court to entertain the appeal. The appeal before the tribunal turned essentially on an evaluative assessment of the facts. The tribunal performed that function in a perfectly straightforward and legitimate way. Like Sullivan LJ, even if the ordinary appeals test were being applied, I do not think that there would be a real prospect of success on appeal; still less can it be said that this is an appeal which satisfies the second appeals test.

For these reasons, I dismiss this application.