Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/00679/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at: Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On: 16th January 2017
On: 17 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between

Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad
Appellant
And

Chaudhry Jamishaid Iqbal
(no anonymity direction made)
Respondent

For the Appellant: Ms Ahmad, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: -

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The Respondent is a national of Pakistan date of birth 5th August 1955. I have not been asked to make a direction for anonymity and on the facts I see no reason to do so.
2. The matter in issue before the First-tier Tribunal was whether the ECO in Islamabad was correct to have refused to grant Mr Iqbal a family permit under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Mr Iqbal asserted that he is the dependent family member of an EEA national exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom. The EEA national in question is Dutch national Mr Muhammad Luqman Aish. The ECO had refused the application on the grounds that he could not be satisfied that the two men were related as claimed.
3. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence and made the following findings:
"I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant has provided satisfactory evidence that he is related to the EEA national sponsor"
[paragraph 10]
"I do not find that the documents presented by the Appellant are reliable"
[at 11]
"there is insufficient evidence that he was with the EEA national sponsor during this time or that he was dependent upon him"
[at 12]
"There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Appellant is dependent upon the EEA sponsor"
[at 13]
"Accordingly I conclude that, the Appellant has not provided sufficient satisfactory evidence to meet the requirements of Regulations 6 & 7 of the EEA Regulations and is not entitled to be issued with a family permit"
[at 14]
4. The determination concludes with the words "the appeal is allowed under the EEA regulations".
5. The ECO now contends that the First-tier Tribunal plainly did not intend to allow the appeal. I agree. The entire body of the reasoning indicates that the Tribunal did not find the burden of proof to be discharged. The conclusion of the determination is therefore inconsistent with the decision overall. In the circumstances I consider it appropriate to remit the matter to Judge Hands so that she has an opportunity to clarify, and if appropriate amend her decision.

Decisions
6. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal contains an error of law and it is set aside.
7. The matter is remitted to First-tier Tribunal Judge Hands.
8. There is no order for anonymity. I was not asked to make such an order and on the facts I see no reason to make one.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
16th January 2017