Grounds for Appeal

of Immigration Decision Reference J1102678, the Refusal to Vary Leave for Mrs. Myrlia Nora Purcell (nee Jung), of the United States of America.


1. The Appellant meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules.  The decision is contrary to the evidence and does not take all relevant circumstances into account.  Discretions under the immigration rules should have been exercised differently.
  1. The discretion to grant Further Leave to Remain on compassionate grounds was available to the Home Office, but this discretion was not exercised correctly given the significantly distressing personal circumstances detailed in and with the refused Application.
  2. Advice received by the Appellant from the Home Office in a telephone conversation indicated that the application was valid given the Appellant's circumstances, which were disclosed fully in the conversation.
2. The decision is unlawful because it is incompatible with the rights of the Appellant under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The decision is also incompatible with the identical rights of the Appellant's husband and infant daughter.
  1. The refusal to grant the Appellant leave to remain in the UK interferes with the exercising of the rights of the Appellant and her family to respect for their private and family life.
  2. The circumstances and evidence described in and enclosed with the refused Application detail medical, emotional and professional reasons why the granting of leave to remain was necessary for the well-being of the Appellant and her family. The lack of respect shown for their family and private life has caused the family to suffer stress, depression and limiting of career opportunities, not to mention causing the extended family distress.
  3. According to the reasons given for refusal of the Application, this interference is not in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
3. The Appellant's removal from the United Kingdom as a result of the decision would be incompatible with the Appellant's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Additionally, her removal would be incompatible with the identical rights of the Appellant's husband and infant daughter.
  1. Removing the Appellant from the United Kingdom as a result of the decision would interfere with the exercising of the rights of the Appellant and her family to respect for their private and family life.
  2. The British infant child of the Appellant would be required to undertake extensive and stressful travel with the Appellant, since the child is breast-fed and therefore cannot be separated from her mother.
  3. The Appellant and her daughter are financially dependent upon the husband of the Appellant, and although his means have been judged adequate to support his family in the United Kingdom, the removal of the Appellant would require him to pay additional residence and travel costs to an extent that would cause the family difficulties.
  4. The Appellant's husband would not be able to travel for an indeterminate period with his family, and this would cause the family members to be separated from one another.
  5. The husband of the Appellant is employed and resident in the United Kingdom. He could not undertake an extended period of travel with the Appellant and their daughter without taking unpaid leave. The resulting loss of income would jeopardise his ability to continue to provide a residence for his family.
  6. The prospect of such travel is injurious to the Appellant's husband's career, since his employer relies upon his predictable availability to its clients.
  7. The parents and brother of the Appellant's husband are British and are resident in the United Kingdom, and the Appellant's family rely upon the direct support of these extended family members.
  8. The interference with the family's rights under Article 8 of the Convention would not be in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.