Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: eA/01325/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House, London
Determination Promulgated
On 16 January 2017
On 18 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PLIMMER

Between

RAMUNE MARTUSYTE
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the appellant: Unrepresented
For the SSHD: Mr P Singh, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS
1. In a decision dated 15 August 2016 the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against a decision to refuse her a document certifying permanent residence as an Accession state national worker on the basis of five continuous years of lawful residence. The appellant is a citizen of Lithuania.
2. The appeal was heard on the papers in accordance with the appellant's request. The First-tier Tribunal noted that the basis for the respondent's refusal relates to an allegation that the appellant registered her employment for 'Etrusca Group Ltd' and failed to provide evidence she worked there. In her grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal the appellant made it very clear that she has been employed at 'Town Centre Restaurant Ltd' from 2007 not 'Etrusca'. In support of this explanation the appellant submitted P60s in relation to her employment at 'Town Centre Enterprises Ltd' from 2007-2012 and 'TCR Ltd' (with the same employer address at Town Centre Restaurant Ltd) from 2013-2015.
3. The First-tier Tribunal regarded the evidence provided as insufficient on the basis that "P60 are notoriously easy to produce and there is no independent or objective evidence or context from other sources with which to weigh or view these individual P60 forms. There is for example no HMRC evidence."
4. Mr Singh invited me to find that the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to approach the evidence in this way. I do not agree. The appellant provided a an apparently cogent explanation that was supported by apparently credible P60s and other documentation. There was no basis to suggest that the P60s were not genuine documents. There was no such position on the part of the respondent before the First-tier Tribunal. Further, the First-tier Tribunal was mistaken in finding an absence of other evidence. The appellant had provided evidence confirming her address from Newham Council. This was consistent with the address provided in the later P60s.
5. I am satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal has provided inadequate reasons for dismissing the appeal and has failed to engage with the evidence available to it. This failure has infected the First-tier Tribunal's factual findings and these need to be remade completely. The nature and extent of the necessary fact finding is such that the matter should be remade by the First-tier Tribunal.

Decision
6. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law. Its decision cannot stand and is set aside.
7. The appeal shall be remade by First-tier Tribunal de novo.

Directions
(1) The appeal shall be reheard de novo by the First-tier Tribunal (TE: 1 hr) on the first date available.
(2) The appellant shall provide the First-tier Tribunal and the Home Office with all relevant documentary evidence (including all evidence available from HMRC and her employer confirming her employment) 14 days before the hearing.
(3) Within 14 days of the date of sending this decision the appellant shall indicate to the Tribunal whether she wishes the matter to proceed by way of a paper or oral hearing and if she requests an oral hearing the appropriate fee needs to be paid.

Signed:

Ms M. Plimmer
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Date:
14 January 2016