Gerald Eze Durueke v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal on a point not advanced by either party should be granted only where the evidence needed to establish that point is apparent from the grounds, the decision under challenge or the documents on file. A permission judge should identify the applicable limb of the guidance in AZ (error of law: jurisdiction; PTA practice) Iran [2018] UKUT 00245 (IAC).

An allegation that a tribunal gave insufficient weight to evidence ordinarily discloses no error of law. Permission should be granted on that basis only where the alleged weighting error arguably produced an irrational decision. Complaints that evidence was insufficiently considered or analysed should identify precisely the alleged deficiency and its materiality.

The appellant, a Nigerian national, appealed against a First-tier Tribunal decision dismissing his human-rights appeal against the refusal of leave to remain on private-life grounds. He relied on his relationship with his aunt in the United Kingdom, previous depression, and the asserted difficulty of re-establishing himself in Nigeria.

The First-tier Tribunal considered his case at its highest, including the asserted family life and the aunt's financial support, and found removal proportionate. Permission to appeal was granted on the appellant's two grounds and on three additional points raised by the permission judge. The central issues were whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in its treatment of the aunt's circumstances and whether the additional permission grounds were properly raised.

1. Appeal dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law. Its decision dismissing the appeal against the refusal of leave to remain therefore stood.

2. The First-tier Tribunal had assessed the appellant's claim to family life with his aunt at its highest. It was entitled to find that their relationship could continue at a distance. The evidence did not establish a further impact on the aunt from his departure which the tribunal had failed to consider.

3. The challenge to the finding that the aunt could provide initial financial assistance in Nigeria was no more than disagreement with the First-tier Tribunal's reasoning. The tribunal had found that the appellant could seek work and that any assistance would be temporary. In the absence of evidence explaining why assistance was unaffordable despite substantial savings, that finding was not irrational.

4. The permission judge's additional points did not meet the threshold in AZ (error of law: jurisdiction; PTA practice) Iran [2018] UKUT 00245 (IAC). A point raised without the parties' assistance must have a strong prospect of success, unless it falls within another stated limb of the AZ guidance. The necessary supporting evidence must be apparent from the existing materials; the permission judge must not assume that it was before the First-tier Tribunal.

5. Arguments that insufficient weight was given to family life, emotional support or financial matters did not identify an arguable error of law. Complaints of insufficient consideration or analysis require a precise, material deficiency. They cannot merely express a preference for fuller reasoning or different weight.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): dismissed the appeal for want of an error of law and preserved the First-tier Tribunal's decision.

• First-tier Tribunal: dismissed the appellant's appeal against the refusal of leave to remain on private-life grounds.