VS (Para 317(iii), no 3rd party support) Sri Lanka

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an appellant, a citizen of Sri Lanka born in 1941, who applied for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as the dependent relative of his son. The initial application was refused, and the appellant's subsequent appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed by Immigration Judge Mayall. Following a reconsideration order by Senior Immigration Batiste, the appeal was reviewed again with the central issue focusing on the appellant's financial dependency under paragraph 317(iii) of the Immigration Rules (HC395). The appellant claimed financial dependency on his son, who is settled in the UK but is himself dependent on public funds and receives financial support from a third party. The Tribunal had to determine whether the appellant met the dependency requirement, considering the source of the funds and the relevant legal provisions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant is financially wholly or mainly dependent on the relative present and settled in the United Kingdom within the meaning of paragraph 317(iii) of the Immigration Rules.
2. Whether third party financial support, routed through the sponsor who is dependent on public funds, can constitute dependency under the Immigration Rules.
3. The applicability and interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the appellant’s claim.
4. Whether there is any discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights relevant to this appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that he was dependent on the sponsor (his son) in the UK, regardless of the source of the sponsor’s income.
• The source of the sponsor's income, even if from a third party, was irrelevant to the dependency requirement under paragraph 317(iii).
• The appellant relied on established family life between himself and his son, invoking Article 8 rights, emphasizing the sponsor’s disability and inability to visit Sri Lanka.
• It was argued that the Immigration Judge had applied an incorrect legal test and made a material error of law in interpreting the dependency requirement.
• The appellant also raised the potential applicability of Article 14 concerning discrimination, though this was not raised before the Immigration Judge.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent accepted that the sponsor acted as a conduit for the money provided by a third party but argued that the sponsor was wholly dependent on public funds and therefore could not be considered the source of the appellant’s dependency.
• Concerns were expressed about the short-term nature of the third party funding.
• The respondent maintained that the Immigration Judge’s interpretation of paragraph 317(iii) was correct, emphasizing that the appellant’s dependency must be on the relative settled in the UK, not on a third party.
• The respondent accepted the credibility of the witnesses but stressed that the sponsor’s financial situation did not allow him to support the appellant independently.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined paragraph 317(iii) of the Immigration Rules, which requires the appellant to be financially wholly or mainly dependent on a relative settled in the UK. The court noted that the appellant’s sponsor was dependent on public funds and received disability and housing benefits, and that the actual financial support to the appellant originated from a third party, Mr. Arunan. The sponsor acted merely as a conduit for these funds.

Relying on the precedent set in AA Bangladesh, the court confirmed that third party support routed through the sponsor does not satisfy the requirement of dependency on the sponsor. The court reasoned that the legal requirement is for dependency on the relative themselves, not on another party providing funds indirectly.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the source of the sponsor’s income was irrelevant, emphasizing that the dependency must be on the sponsor as the source of support. The lack of evidence showing the funds belonged to the sponsor, such as tax or benefit declarations, further supported this conclusion.

Regarding human rights claims, the court acknowledged the existence of family life and the sponsor’s disability but found that the Immigration Judge had adequately considered Article 8 rights following the principles in Huang. The court also found no basis for an Article 14 discrimination claim.

Ultimately, the court found no material error of law in the Immigration Judge’s interpretation and application of paragraph 317(iii) of the Immigration Rules.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Immigration Judge made no material error of law in dismissing the appellant’s appeal on the basis that the appellant was not financially dependent on the relative settled in the UK, as required by paragraph 317(iii) of the Immigration Rules.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant’s application for entry clearance as a dependent relative is refused. The ruling confirms that financial support from third parties, even if passed through a sponsor, does not satisfy the dependency requirement. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding third party support and dependency under the Immigration Rules.