Skinner’s Field & Trial Light & Senior – Complete Dry Dog Food, Ideal for Older, Overweight or Less Active Dogs, 15kg

Product Information

By Ground 1, the Appellant challenges the adequacy of the Judge’s reasons in relation to the rejection of her claimed reasons for not having claimed leave to remain earlier than she did. I do not accept that the Judge’s reasons were inadequate in this respect. The Judge’s reasons for rejecting the Appellant’s claimed reasons for not applying for leave before she did are clear, namely that the Appellant not only overstayed but she then also engaged in illegal employment. To the extent that this is a challenge to the cogency of the reasons, I also do not consider that this reasoning is perverse. The Appellant’s illegal overstaying and working for a very long period of time indicates a disregard for the Rules, which in turn damages the credibility of her claim to have been seeking to abide by them. The Respondent filed a response to the appeal pursuant to rule 24 of the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules. In summary, the Respondent submitted that: The Appellant was close to her mother, who was a British citizen, as was her mother’s husband. It is unclear to me on what basis her mother was a British citizen, but I assume that the Appellant has sought the necessary advice to ensure that she did not either acquire British citizenship by descent when she was born, or is otherwise entitled to it. c. In relation to Ground 3, the Judge properly considered all aspects of the Appellant’s private life and immigration history when considering proportionality under Article 8 and reached a conclusion to which he was entitled to reach.

The scope of the evidence in this case is relatively narrow. Notwithstanding that however I am setting aside the FTT Decision as a whole and the appeal will have to be re-determined anew. Moreover, the failure in this case is a failure to give reasons, which forms part of the duty to act fairly. On balance, and having regard to Part 3 of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction and paragraph 7 of the Practice Statement, as well as the guidance given in the reported decision of Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 46 (IAC), it therefore seems to me more appropriate to remit this appeal for redetermination in the FTT.The FTT Decision is very short. Before turning to that, it is therefore necessary to set out the essence of the Appellant’s case. Her evidence, as set out in her witness statement, can be summarised as follows. b. As to Ground 2, the findings as to the extent of her relationship with the Appellant’s family members in the Philippines is consistent with the Appellant’s original application and the findings were open to the Judge.

She is estranged from her ex-husband, and came to the UK in 2006. She has two sons, aged 29 and 33, who live with their father in the Philippines, and she also has one sister there, who has her own family, although the refusal letter refers to two sisters in that country. I do not consider that there would be very significant obstacles to her integration into the Philippines on return, because that is the country where she has spent most of her adult life, and she confirms that she still has family relations in that country. The Appellant was born on 2 November 1969 and left school at 17 because she was pregnant with her first son. She had a second son a few years later. They are now 34 and 29 and continue to live with their father. The Appellant accordingly contended in her application and her appeal to the FTT that she had been in the UK for 17 years (at the date of the hearing before the FTT) and would face very significant obstacles to her reintegration into the Philippines and is thus entitled to leave pursuant to paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules, or, alternatively outside of the Rules pursuant to Article 8 ECHR.

Skinners Light and Senior Price Analysis

I put to Mr Krushner at the hearing whether, even if the Appellant had no family in the Philippines, her case would surmount the very significant obstacles threshold. Mr Krushner submitted that it at least could do, such that the issue is material. I have not found the question of the materiality of this error very straightforward. On any view, this is far from a strong claim for leave pursuant to paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi), but, having regard to the broad evaluative assessment that must be undertaken in determining whether there are very significant obstacles (see Kamara v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 813; [2016] 4 WLR 152 at [14] per Sales LJ, as he then was), and given that I have not heard the evidence, I am not satisfied that this is an error which can be said to reach the high threshold of immateriality recently reaffirmed in ASO (Iraq) v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 1282 at [43]. However, in any event, the reason that she overstayed, as opposed to the fact that she did so, and for such a long time was not in my judgment part of the Judge’s reasoning in relation to her Article 8 claim. It is not relevant to the questions to be answered in the determination of entitlement under paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) and does not feature in para. 9 for that reason, and in para.10, dealing with Article 8 outside the rules to which it might possibly have a tangential relevance, the manner by which the Appellant came to be in the UK unlawfully is not mentioned. Rather, the fact that her private life has been built up during periods of precarious, and then no leave, is what the Judge took into account.

The Appellant came to the UK on 19 February 2006 with her mother. The Appellant came on a visit visa. Sadly her mother died that same year whilst they were in the UK, and, it would appear on that basis, the Appellant’s visa was extended until 9 March 2007. She has overstayed ever since. Whilst here, she has worked as a domestic worker and is engaged in other voluntary activities, including through her church. a. Ground 1: The Judge failed to give proper reasons for rejecting the Appellant’s evidence as to why she had not made an earlier application for leave. Field & Trial Light and Senior is a complete working dog food. This dry food recipe has been specially developed and formulated for any dog that requires a less energy dense diet. Typically, these dogs are older or less active dogs and those who may be predisposed to weight gain! With a formulation that includes reduced levels of fat and protein, Light and Senior is an ideal diet for any dog that needs dietary support (in addition to exercise and other lifestyle management!) to maintain a healthy weight and body condition and can be fed both in meals and as treats as a holistic weight management strategy. Thank you for taking the time to read our Skinners Light and Senior review from the Pets category. If there’s any products that we have not yet reviewed please leave us a comment and we will do our best to get a review added. About Chemist Direct Field & Trial Light & Senior is a complete working dog food specially developed and formulated for senior dogs, those with lower energy requirements and adult dogs who are prone to weight gain.While the 'mixing bowl' composition is useful for knowing what went into the food, it doesn't always reflect what your dog is actually eating. This is because the processes that turn the ingredients into the finished pet food can significantly alter the relative weights of the ingredients. I did not accept the appellant’s evidence that she had not made an earlier application for leave to remain because of difficulties with the dates on her respective passports, or that she had insufficient funds for such an application. She has not only over-stayed her visa, but has also been working in a child-minding/domestic capacity, contrary to the Rules. She has blatantly ignored the Immigration Rules of the UK, and now attempts to remain in the UK on the basis of her evidence, which is as follows. Carb-rich ingredients: includes all ingredients derived from grains, pseudo-grains, potatoes and other starchy root vegetables, sweet potato and legumes (except whole peas which are categorised under fruit and veg) except for isolated protein and extracted oils. Also includes fibre supplements.

Having summarised the nature of the claim, the evidence and the burden and standard of proof, the Judge’s operative reasoning begins at para. 8. The Judge stated as follows: c. Ground 3: The Judge has failed to take into account the fact that the Appellant has been in the UK for 17 years.With a formulation that includes reduced levels of fat and protein, Light & Senior is an ideal diet for any dog that needs dietary support (in addition to exercise and other lifestyle management!) to maintain a healthy weight and body condition. This diet can be fed both in meals and as treats as a holistic weight management strategy using its specially shaped kibble to help hunger stay away. For this reason we've calculated the approximate 'as fed' percentages for the main ingredient categories in the finished product. Permission to appeal was granted on all grounds by First-tier Tribunal Judge Beach on 18 September 2023. Her reasoning was as follows: The Appellant is a national of the Philippines. She appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sweet (“the Judge”) promulgated on 22 June 2023 (“the FTT Decision”) dismissing her appeal against the Respondent’s refusal dated 6 February 2023 of her human rights claim. That claim was based on her private life under Article 8 ECHR, built up during her long residence in the UK, it being agreed that she has been here since 19 February 2006. It is not clear to me when, but the Appellant then married her now ex husband (who is not the father of her children, to whom she was not married). She considers that she divorced her husband physically in 2006 when she came to the UK, and legally in 2016. The Appellant did not ever work in the Philippines.