Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12495/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at North Shields
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 22 August 2016
On 23 August 2016
Prepared on 22 August 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JM HOLMES

Between

M. R.
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Brakaj Solicitor, Iris Law Firm
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant entered the United Kingdom illegally and claimed asylum on 6 May 2009. That application was refused on 5 June 2009, and a decision to remove him was made in consequence.
2. The Appellant's appeal to the Tribunal against those immigration decisions was first heard and dismissed on 22 July 2009.
3. The Appellant has since made a series of further submissions, which were rejected. On 22 September 2015 a further decision was made to refuse leave to remain in the UK and to remove him. A s120 notice was served with that decision, and the Appellant's appeal against that decision was then heard, and dismissed on asylum grounds, but allowed on Article 8 grounds by decision of First Tier Tribunal Judge Handley promulgated on 2 May 2016.
4. The Respondent's application to the First Tier Tribunal for permission to appeal was granted by Judge Pedro on 26 May 2016. Thus the matter comes before me.
Error of Law?
5. The Appellant has offered no challenge to the Judge's decision that his return to Iraq was feasible, and could be effected without a breach of his Convention rights, or his Article 3 rights.
6. For her part the Respondent has offered no challenge to the Judge's decision upon whether it was reasonable to expect the Appellant's partner and child to relocate to Iraq. They are both British citizens, and the Judge concluded [42] that it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so. The Judge also accepted that the Appellant has a genuine and subsisting relationship with his child [39].
7. Whilst the Judge made no express reference to s117B(6) of the 2002 Act, the decision does therefore contain the two necessary constituent elements for the statutory conclusion that the public interest does not require the Appellant's removal. Mr McVeety accepted that this was the case, and that the conclusions set out in the President's decision in Treebhawon and others (section 117B(6)) [2015] UKUT 674 applied. He accepted that it followed that the grounds disclosed no material error of law.
8. In the circumstances the Judge did not make any material error of law in his decision to allow the appeal on Article 8 grounds outside the Immigration Rules, and the Respondent's appeal is dismissed.
DECISION
The Decision of the First Tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 3 May 2016 did not involve the making of an error of law in the decision to decision to allow the Appellant's appeal on Article 8 grounds that requires that decision to be set aside and remade.
The decision to dismiss the appeal on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds, but to allow the appeal on Article 8 grounds is accordingly confirmed.

Signed

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge JM Holmes
Dated 22 August 2016

Direction regarding anonymity - Rule 14 Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Unless and until the Tribunal directs otherwise the Appellant is granted anonymity throughout these proceedings. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to proceedings being brought for contempt of court.

Signed

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge JM Holmes
Dated 22 August 2016