AA/07498/2014

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision


Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/07498/2014


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Eagle Building, Glasgow
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 02 September 2015
On 6 October 2015




Before

The President, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman


Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant

and


MR HUA DI LIN
Respondent

Representation:

Appellant: Ms Saddiq, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Respondent: Mr Winter, of Counsel, instructed by Katani and Company Solicitors


DECISION AND REASONS

1. For convenience we annex to this decision a copy of the grant of permission to appeal dated 04 December 2014. We refer particularly to [3] thereof.

2. Upon the hearing of the Secretary of State's appeal, it was acknowledged by Mr Winter, Counsel for the Respondent, that the criticism enshrined in [3] of the grant of permission to appeal is, in substance, well made, not least because at the time of the determination of the First-tier Tribunal (the "FtT") there was in fact no outstanding determination of any application or representations to the Secretary of State differing from or other than the appeal to the FtT itself. As a result, the premise upon which the FtT purported to allow the appeal, in [20], was non-existent. Given this concession, we ordered that the decision of the FtT be set aside.

3. We proceeded to remake the decision. In submissions, Mr Winter reiterated the concession mentioned above and did not formulate any further argument.

4. In pronouncing our decision, we held that since it is common case that there will be no separation of decision making and associated fragmentation, however temporary, of the three members of the family unit, the correct analysis must be that the impugned decision of the Secretary of State, contained in the letter dated 15 September 2014, does not interfere with the right to respect for family life enjoyed by any of those concerned as the family unit will remain intact.. Since there will be no interference, no further Article 8 analysis is required. We would add that in any event the legitimate aims in play are not contentious and, even on the incorrect hypothesis upon which the FtT proceeded, the proportionality of the impugned decision is beyond plausible dispute.

DECISION

5. Thus we decide as follows:

(a) The decision of the FtT is set aside.

(b) We remake such decision by dismissing the Appellant's appeal.






THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY
PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Date: 03 September 2015
A N N E X