- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
[quote="TD (Paragraph 297(i)(e): "sole responsibility") Yemen [2006] UKAIT 00049"]28. In Nmaju v SSHD, the Court of Appeal was faced with the particular issue that if "sole responsibility" was established for a short period of time (in that case 2½ months) at the date of decision whether that was insufficient to satisfy the rule. Not surprisingly, the Court of Appeal refused to place a gloss on the wording of paragraph 297(i)(e) so as to require the "sole responsibility" to last for any particular duration (see also Qui Zou [2002] UKIAT 07463 ). We would add only that the appellant's burden of showing sole responsibility may be more difficult to discharge when there is only a short period to point to.[/quote]"substancial period of time"
Thank you very much for your reply. I am not really sure how can you prove that he had no involvment. It makes sense to show and prove something that exists, but how can you show and prove something that does not? What can be the profe of "non involvment"?avjones wrote:It's not who looks after her that matters for sole responsibility. For a birth father to have given up responsibility, you need to show essentially no involvement in your daughter's life, no contact, etc.