EA/02193/2015

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

The decision


IAC-FH-LW-V2

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/02193/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 16 January 2017
On 07 February 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN


Between

Waqas ejaz
(anonymity direction not made)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS


1. This is the appeal of Mr Ejaz against the decision of the First-tier Judge refusing his appeal against the respondent's decision of 28 October 2015 for an EEA family permit to join his spouse in the United Kingdom. The judge dismissed the appeal and the main point in the grounds and in relation to which permission was granted by the First-tier Judge is that the judge failed to state that the burden with regard to the alleged marriage of convenience was on the respondent. That is a point which I think is well taken and Mr Tufan, as always helpful, does not really take issue with that provisional view. The judge says the standard of proof is the civil standard of a balance of probabilities which is ambiguous of course and does not go on when looking at the evidence to say on whom that burden is, and in fact it is not really conclusive as to whether the burden has been discharged or not anyway. Clearly, the judge had concerns with the evidence and I may say entirely understandable concerns, but that is not really the point if those matters have not been brought together into the proper evaluation of the claim in the context of identification of the party on whom the burden was and what the standard of proof was. There is, as Mr Tufan says, a child.

Notice of Decision

2. In all the circumstances it seems to me that the only appropriate outcome in this case is it for it to be remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal in Glasgow for a full hearing.

3. No anonymity direction is made.



Signed Date

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen