Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-LW-V2

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: Ea/00671/2016
EA/00999/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 9 February 2017
On 22 February 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN

Between

the Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

mrs Iva Magalhaes Teves (First respondent)
mr Bruno Miguel Resendes Teves (second respondent)
(anonymity direction not made)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: No appearance
For the Respondent: Mr Nath, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is the appeal of Mr and Mrs Teves, as it was originally, against the decision of Judge Clough who allowed their appeal against the respondent's decision refusing them permanent residence cards. As a consequence the appellant before me is the Secretary of State, but I will continue to refer to Mr and Mrs Teves as the appellants to avoid confusion.

2. There is no appearance by or on behalf of either of them today. The original hearing was done on the papers by agreement and it may be that they thought that the same would apply here. Mr Nath appears on behalf of the Secretary of State.

3. The judge allowed the appeal because, looking at paragraph 6, she said both appellants work for Wilson James Ltd. The first appellant since 4 April 2008, since which time she has been employed as a security supervisor and her husband has been employed at the same firm since 31 March 2008 as a team leader, both are employed on full-time indefinite contracts by Wilson James Ltd, so the judge allowed the appeal and the grounds of appeal argue that the judge provided no nexus between the conclusions reached and any evidence at all. In other words she had not stated what the evidence was before her and why it was accepted as sufficient to warrant overturning the original lawful decision and that made it impossible to be sure that the conclusions reached were safe. The First-tier Judge granted permission on the basis that there was an arguable lack of adequacy in the reasons, but on the file one can see support for the judge's conclusion: letters from Wilson James in respect of both appellants confirming what was said by the judge about the nature of their employment and the period of employment. Mr Nath has now had a chance to look at the letters and agrees that they bear out the judge's finding, and it is perhaps an object lesson in passing to judges to make sure that they do tie their conclusions in with the evidence and say what the evidence is they have received. The evidence provided does not include payslips, but I do not believe that that is a pre-requisite in any sense. They are simply letters from the employer confirming the employment and its duration, which is such as to make it clear that the appellants can satisfy the requirements of the Regulations in this regard and as a consequence the judge's decision allowing this appeal is maintained.

4. No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen