Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/03006/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at North Shields
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 9 March 2017
On 10 March 2017
Prepared on 9 March 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JM HOLMES

Between

E. S.
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: in person
For the Respondent: Ms Petterson, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Greece. She applied for the issue to her of a residence card as confirmation of a permanent right of residence, on 11 January 2016. That application was refused on 25 February 2016. The application was by reference to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 [“EEA Regulations”] and based upon the length of her presence in the UK as a “qualified person”.
2. The application was refused on the basis the Respondent was not satisfied that the Appellant had provided adequate evidence of her economic status in the UK. The Appellant appealed to the First Tier Tribunal against that refusal, and her appeal was heard, and then dismissed, by First Tier Tribunal Judge Hosie, upon the papers filed by the parties, in a decision promulgated on 17 June 2016.
3. The Appellant sought permission to appeal that decision to the Upper Tribunal in grounds that also double as the skeleton argument relied upon in support of the appeal. Permission was granted by First Tier Tribunal Judge Grimmett on 29 December 2016 on the basis it was arguable that Judge Hosie had not had regard to the papers filed by the Appellant in support of her appeal so that there had been procedural unfairness.
4. The Respondent served a Rule 24 response dated 13 January 2017 opposing the grant on the basis it was said to be unclear how the Appellant could have succeeded on the evidence filed.
5. Thus the matter comes before me.

Error of Law?
6. It is plain from the material on the Tribunal file that the Appellant sent her evidence to the Tribunal by post on 6 May 2016, that required a signature upon delivery. That material was received at the administration centre in Leicester, and then forwarded to the hearing centre in Glasgow where it was received on 26 May 2016. The receipt of that material on 26 May postdated the date given for the hearing before Judge Hosie on 18 May, but it pre-dated the decision written only on 10 June 2016. Having examined the Tribunal file Ms Petterson accepted the accuracy of that analysis.
7. Ms Petterson then went on to confirm that there was nothing in the decision of Judge Hosie to suggest that the bundle of documents filed by the Appellant had been examined or their content taken into account. As a result she accepted that the decision had to be set aside for procedural unfairness, and remade.
8. Having considered the content of the Appellant’s evidence Ms Petterson then went on to confirm that I should remake the decision upon the appeal so as to allow the appeal under regulation 15, since the Appellant had now demonstrated that she had resided in the UK for five years in accordance with the 2006 Regulations before 28 May 2016, and that she had done so in accordance with the 2016 Regulations before 9 March 2017.

Disposal
9. The parties were therefore agreed that I should set aside the Judge’s decision to dismiss the appeal, and, that I should go on to remake that decision in the Appellant’s favour on the basis the Appellant was entitled to the issue of a permanent residence card by reference to Regulation 15

DECISION
The Determination of the First Tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 17 June 2016 did involve the making of an error of law that requires that decision to be set aside and remade.
I remake the decision so as to allow the appeal remake that decision in the Appellant’s favour on the basis the Appellant was entitled to the issue of a permanent residence card by reference to Regulation 15

Direction regarding anonymity – Rule 14 Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Unless and until the Tribunal directs otherwise the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify her. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to proceedings being brought for contempt of court.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge JM Holmes
Dated 9 March 2017