![insurmountable obstacles insurmountable obstacles](http://www.sovietpropaganda.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IMG_7247_W.jpg)
On 17 April 2015 she applied for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of her relationship with him. On 12 December 2014, the Appellant married a British citizen.
![insurmountable obstacles insurmountable obstacles](https://uploads5.wikiart.org/images/wojciech-siudmak/the-insurmountable-obstacle.jpg)
Her leave to remain was subsequently extended until 19 April 2015.
![insurmountable obstacles insurmountable obstacles](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/ac/8d/c5ac8d1294c56f4e2e91eff914bd9ecb.jpg)
The Appellant, an Indian national born in 1984 arrived in the UK on 24 January 2011 with entry clearance as a Tier 4 (General) Student valid until 10 January 2013. “ Is it open to the Upper Tribunal, having left the FTT judge’s findings on the facts undisturbed, namely that the husband of an applicant for leave to remain would not be able to cope with the identified insurmountable obstacles in the country of return and would not be able to return with her, to conclude that the test is not whether the applicant’s husband subjectively cannot surmount those obstacles but whether objectively he should be able do so?” The Appellant appealed the Upper Tribunal’s decision, with the Court of Appeal subsequently granting permission to appeal as the case was considered to satisfy the test for a second appeal as it not only had a real prospect of success but raised an important point of principle, which was expressed in these terms: On further appeal, following the Secretary of State having applied for permission to appeal, the Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT decision on grounds of error of law, re-made the decision and dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. He was also very clear that if his wife was required to return to India that he would not be able to return with her. In concluding that the “insurmountable obstacles” test to family life continuing outside the UK (in terms of EX.1(b)of Appendix FM of the Rules) had been met, the FTT Judge allowed the appeal on the basis that the Appellant’s husband, a British citizen in his 70’s, who had always lived in the UK, would not be able to move to India if his wife was required to return there as he simply would not be able to cope with the heat in the country. In Lal v The Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 1925 (08 November 2019), neither the First Tier Tribunal who allowed the Appellant’s family life appeal nor the Upper Tribunal who overturned that decision got the law quite right.Īs summarised by the Court of Appeal, the case raised issues about when refusing the partner of a British citizen leave to remain in the United Kingdom violates their rights to respect for their family life.