EA/01570/2021 & EA/01574/2021

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

The decision


IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers:
UI-2021-001477 EA/01570/2021
UI-2021-001478 EA/01574/2021

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 8 April 2022
On the 23rd June 2022



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN

Between

Mr Naveed Ahmed
Mr Usama Naveed
(anonymity direction not made)
Appellants
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellants: Mr M Fazli, instructed by Reliance Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms H Gilmour, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is the appeal of Mr Naveed and his son against the decision of the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal who dismissed their appeal against a refusal of the Entry Clearance Officer to grant an EEA family permit as extended family members of an EEA national.

2. I need say very little about the judge’s decision and the background in the circumstances. Mr Fazli appears on behalf of the appellants as he did below and Ms Gilmour appears on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is a Rule 24 response of 15 March in which it was said that the respondent did not oppose the application for permission on the basis that the focus of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was on the question whether the sponsor’s support was sufficient to meet the needs of the appellants rather than whether there was a need for the support and if in fact the support was being provided.

3. There were other matters set out by way of challenge to the decision which included arguments in respect of failure to take account of evidence before the judge. The decision of the judge who granted permission is helpful in that regard and on the main point.

4. It is common ground that the extent of the errors by the judge are such that this will need to be remitted for a full rehearing. I think that is entirely right and so the appeal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted for a full rehearing before a different judge at Taylor House.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is allowed to the extent set out above.

No anonymity direction is made.







Signed Date 29 April 2022
Upper Tribunal Judge Allen