|[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 >> BO (Domestic worker, connection with Sponsor) Nigeria  UKAIT 00053 (04 June 2006)
Cite as:  UKAIT 00053,  UKAIT 53
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
BO (Domestic worker – connection with Sponsor) Nigeria  UKAIT 00053
Date of hearing: 22 May 2007
Date Determination notified: 05 June 2006
|ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, LAGOS||RESPONDENT|
For the Appellant: Mrs O Adegburin, Sponsor.
For the Respondent: Mr S Ouseley, Presenting Officer.
Under Rule 159A an Immigration Judge should look at least at the final year of the domestic worker/sponsor relationship, but may also take into account a longer period to ascertain the extent of their connection, and should do so if there is some temporary aberration in the final year from the established long-term pattern.
159A. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a domestic worker in a private household are that he:
(i) is aged 18-65 inclusive;
(ii) has been employed as a domestic worker for one year or more immediately prior to application for entry clearance under the same roof as his employer or in a household that the employer uses for himself on a regular basis and where there is evidence that there is a connection between employer and employee;
(iii) that he intends to travel to the United Kingdom in the company of his employer, his employer's spouse or civil partner or his employer's minor child;
(iv) intends to work full time as a domestic worker under the same roof as his employer or in a household that the employer uses for himself on a regular basis and where there is evidence that there is a connection between employer and employee;
(v) does not intend to take employment except within the terms of this paragraph; and
(vi) can maintain and accommodate himself adequately without recourse to public funds; and
(vii) holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity.
"9. Against this background, I am satisfied that the Appellant had been employed as a domestic worker by the Sponsor since March 2004 - and therefore for more than one year before June 2006 (when the Appellant applied for entry clearance). It would not be realistic to contend that she had, at all times between March 2004 and June 2006, been employed "under the same roof" as the Sponsor. I am not satisfied that she had been. For the bulk of the time the Sponsor had been in the United Kingdom. But I am satisfied that, as at 21 June 2006, the Appellant was and had for more than 12 months, been employed at S Street and in the household which the Sponsor used for herself on a regular basis. As at June 2006 there was, or was about to be, a temporary hiatus in the regularity with which the Sponsor would be able to use the accommodation at S Street - because of her pregnancy. But I am not satisfied that that temporary hiatus was such as to lead to the conclusion that as at 21 June 2006, the household was not one which she did not use on a "regular basis". In determining whether this was on a "regular basis", I must have regard to the settled order or general pattern of use - rather than which temporarily obtained on account of the Sponsor's pregnancy. And in considering the settled pattern, I take into account both that one of the reasons for the Sponsor's regular visits in the past no longer obtained, i.e. that her daughter was by that stage in the United Kingdom and that she had taken on the responsibility of the sub-postmastership - which was likely to restrict the frequency with which she could travel to Nigeria and the length of time for which she could stay there. As against that I accept that she had spent about one month there between December 2005 and January 2006 and about a further one month in May/June 2006. Because I accept that the Sponsor had employed the Appellant primarily to look after her daughter but also as a domestic assistant since March 2004, I am satisfied that there was a connection between them.
10. I have no reason to doubt, and I am satisfied, in the light of what I have said above in relation to the Sponsor's credibility, that if entry clearance had been granted, the Appellant would have travelled to the United Kingdom in the company of either the Sponsor or her husband - and that was the Appellant's intention at that time.
11. For substantially the same reason, I am satisfied that it was the Appellant's intention to work full-time as a domestic worker under the same roof as the Sponsor at the Sponsor's home. In so far as it is necessary for me to make an alternative finding, I am satisfied that that house was also the household which the Sponsor used for herself on a regular basis. And for the reason which I have given above I am satisfied that there was a connection between the Appellant and the Sponsor, arising out of the employment of the Appellant since March 2004.
12. In the light of what I have stated above, I am satisfied that the Appellant did not intend to take employment other than for the Sponsor and on the terms indicated, i.e. that she did not intend to take employment except as provided for in paragraph 159A.
15 However, that is plainly not the meaning that the expression "on a regular basis" is intended to bear in the context of paragraph 159A(ii). On the contrary, it is clearly intended to bear the alternative meaning contained in paragraph 4 of the dictionary definition set out above, namely "habitually or customarily used". That was the view adopted by the Designated Immigration Judge, albeit not in precisely those terms. It is a view which in our opinion he was right to adopt. The purpose of the reference to "on a regular basis" in paragraph 159A(ii) is to ensure that there is a genuine connection between the household in which the relevant applicant is employed as a domestic worker and his employer. That requirement would scarcely be served if it were sufficient for the employer to use that household only on an infrequent basis. By way of example, it might be argued that attendance at the household on but a single occasion each year on 25 January to celebrate Burns Night could properly be described as "regular" attendance, but only in the sense of being attendance which recurred at a fixed interval, and clearly not in the sense of being attendance for habitual or customary use. In the context of paragraph 159A(ii), it is plainly the latter sense in which the term is being used.
Mr Ouseley submitted that the "temporary hiatus" in the Sponsor's use of S Street in the year immediately prior to the application, meant she was not in attendance for her "habitual or customary use".
Signed Dated 24 May 2007
Senior Immigration Judge Batiste