Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: AA/01060/2012
AA/01061/2012
AA/01062/2012
AA/01063/2012

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Prepared on 13 May 2013
Date sent
On the papers
On 6 may 2013

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant
and

MRS HINA JASSIM
MR MUHAMMAD JASSIM FAYYAZ
MISS AREEBA JASSIM
MISS IZBAJ JASSIM

Respondents

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. This is the Secretary of State's appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Pugh, following a hearing at North Shields (Kings Court) on 22 May 2012. For ease of reference, I shall throughout this determination refer to the Secretary of State, who was the original respondent as “the Secretary of State” and to the respondents, who were originally the appellants, as “the claimants”.
2. The first claimant, who was born on 22 November 1979, is a citizen of Pakistan, who arrived in this country pursuant to a visit visa on 18 June 2011, together with her husband, the second claimant, and two minor children as her dependants. A further child was born to the first and second claimants while in the UK.
3. The claimants claimed asylum on 1 November 2011, but their application was refused by the Secretary of State, and the claimants were notified of this refusal in a refusal letter dated 17 January 2012.
4. The claimants appealed against this decision and their appeal was heard before First-tier Tribunal Judge Pugh, sitting at North Shields (Kings Court) on 22 May 2012.
5. In a determination dated 26 May 2012, Judge Pugh allowed the appeals on asylum grounds and also under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
6. The Secretary of State has appealed against this decision and was granted permission to appeal by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mailer on 20 June 2012.
7. There are a number of grounds set out by the Secretary of State within the grounds of appeal. It is not necessary to repeat these grounds within this determination, because on 9 October 2012, I gave directions in the following terms:
“1. The appellant in this appeal (the Secretary of State) must by no later than 14 days after these directions are sent out, file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondents, a skeleton argument setting out precisely:
(1) What of the HOPO’s “amplifications” referred to in the grounds it is said were not considered by the First-tier Tribunal Judge,
(2) The reasons why it is said (if it is) that the presence of an interpreter who may have been known to one of the parties had any material bearing on the outcome of the appeal, or if it is not said, why the presence of that interpreter was procedurally unfair, and in any event
(3) Why it is said that “the word of the representative” with regard to that interpreter should not have been accepted by the judge, and
(4) To where other than Karachi it was suggested at the hearing that these respondents could safely relocate.
2. It is noted that notwithstanding the directions of Principal Resident Judge Southern, which were sent to the parties together with the grant of permission, the Secretary of State has not submitted any further evidence or made submissions as to why there needs to be an oral hearing, and the parties are put on notice that if the Secretary of State does not file and serve this skeleton argument in accordance with these directions it is the provisional intention of this Tribunal to dismiss this appeal without a hearing, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
3. In the event that the Secretary of State does file and serve a skeleton argument in accordance with these directions, further directions will then be given for the disposal of this appeal.”

8. Notwithstanding these very clear Directions, the Secretary of State has chosen not to provide a skeleton argument, and has not addressed the matters referred to within these Directions save that on 22 February 2013, a case worker, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State wrote to the Tribunal in the following terms:
“We write with regard to the above appeal. The UK Border Agency has been given permission to appeal against the decision of Immigration Judge Pugh; however we seek permission to amend our grounds of appeal.
We no longer seek to rely on ground 2 of the appeal that was served on 8 June 2012 relating to the issue of procedural unfairness.
We would appreciate it if this could be put before the relevant judge for their consideration.”
9. In the absence of any further argument or submissions on behalf of the Secretary of State, I am satisfied that there is no material error of law in Judge Pugh’s determination, and that his decision must accordingly stand. As I indicated in paragraph 2 of the directions the Tribunal was likely to do, I have accordingly dismissed this appeal without a hearing, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
Decision
There being no material error of law in the determination of the First-tier Tribunal, the Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal, allowing these appellants’ appeals, is upheld.

Signed: Date: 4 June 2013

Upper Tribunal Judge Craig