|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> MI (Paragraph 298 (iii): “independent life”) Pakistan  UKAIT 00052 (05 June 2006)
Cite as:  UKAIT 00052,  UKAIT 52
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
MI (Paragraph 298 (iii): "independent life") Pakistan  UKAIT 00052
Date of hearing: 24.05.2007
Date Determination notified: 05 June 2006
|Secretary of State for the Home Department||RESPONDENT|
The mere fact that a person has chosen the life-style he has does not mean that he is to be regarded as leading an independent life.
1. This is a case where the Tribunal has ordered reconsideration of a decision of Immigration Judge Boyd QC, sitting at Newport on 8 August 2006, dismissing a dependant's appeal by a citizen of Pakistan. The Tribunal thought the judge might have made an error of law in his interpretation of the words emphasised in paragraph 298(iii) of the Rules:
298. The requirements to be met by a person seeking indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the child of a parent, parents or a relative present and settled in the United Kingdom are that he:
[nothing arises on paragraph 298(i)]
(ii) has limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and
(a) is under the age of 18; or
(b) was given leave to enter or remain with a view to settlement under paragraph 302; and
(iii) is not leading an independent life, is unmarried, and has not formed an independent family unit; and
(iv) can, and will, be accommodated adequately by the parent, parents or relative the child was admitted to join, without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the parent, parents or relative the child was admitted to join, own or occupy exclusively; and
(v) can, and will, be maintained adequately by the parent, parents or relative the child was admitted to join, without recourse to public funds.
24. The evidence in this appeal is that the appellant has been in full-time work in the UK for about two years. He works full-time and his net take home pay according to his payslips varies between about £700 and £1,000 a month. His income is deposited in an HSBC bank account in his own name. According to his oral evidence he hands over £500 of this income to his father so that he will not be tempted to waste it. Whenever he needs spending money he asks his father to let him have some and his father hands it over without question. As I understand the arrangement his father acts as a banker. Occasionally if he needed more money than he had deposited with his father, his father would let him have some.
24. The appellant lives with his parents in Cardiff rent free. He does not contribute to the 'household bills.'
25. His father normally works in London, returning home every two or three weeks. His mother by her tradition is unwilling to leave the house without being escorted by a male family member. During his father's absences, the appellant fulfils this role. He also helps his mother with household chores. He agreed that in his culture young men will often live with their parents until marriage and sometimes even after marriage.
26. My assessment of the evidence is that the appellant although working full-time and earning good money, chooses to live at home with his parents because this is part of his tradition. He is not financially dependent on them, nor as far as I can see from the evidence is he emotionally dependent on them any more than any young person is emotionally dependent on his or her parents well into the years of maturity. Indeed it appears that his mother is more dependent on him than he is dependent on his parents.
27. In this appeal the burden is on the appellant. I am not satisfied from the evidence that he is not leading an independent life as required by paragraph 298(iii).
The original Tribunal made a material error of law and the above decision is accordingly substituted.
Senior Immigration Judge