Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/03138/2015
ea/03139/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 17 August 2016
On 1 September 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PITT

Between

ARZU UYAR
RAMAZAN UYAR
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No representation
For the Respondent: Ms Isherwood, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The first appellant is a citizen of Germany and she was born on 22 May 1987. The second appellant is a citizen of Turkey and he was born on 4 June 1982. The appellants are husband and wife.
2. The appellants appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Holt who in a determination of 7 March 2016 refused their appeals for an EEA residence card.
3. The appellants maintain that Mrs Uyar is exercising Treaty rights, doing so by working in her husband's hairdressing business and that they are both therefore entitled to an EEA residence card.
4. The respondent did not agree, finding in her decision dated 21 November 2015 that Mrs Uyar's employment had not been demonstrated by the documents provided and that when multiple telephone calls were made to her employer, her husband's business "A Few Good Men", there was no response.
5. The appellant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal contained very little indeed by way of grounds but Ms Isherwood was prepared to accept that the brief statement in the box at section 6 of the appeal form on page 13 of 18 was sufficient to show the appeal was validly made.
6. The appellants chose not to attend the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. At [13]-[16] Judge Holt found against them as follows:
"13. There is no evidence that the 2nd appellant has rights to work in the United Kingdom given his Turkish nationality. Nonetheless I note that the business "A Few Good Men2 which is allegedly the 1st appellant's employer appears, prima facie, to be his business. I so find because there is a Non-domestic rates demand form on the 2nd appellant's file addressed to "Mr Ramazan Uyar T/A A Few Good Men, 62, Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells Kent". I do not understand the position that the 2nd appellant is apparently able to employ his wife so that she can exercise Treaty Rights upon which he is dependent.
14. In this case there are also a series of identical payslips in the 1st appellant's name which do not appear to be remotely genuine because the tax, NI and total amount is identical every week. I take judicial notice that it is possible to buy wage slips on the internet.
15. Finally there is the deeply unsatisfactory letter on plain paper which simply says "Dear sirs, I confirm that arzu uyar currently working with us. We do not take phone call if we are busy working. If you need to speak to employer please call [mobile phone number] Owner, A Few Good Men, 62 Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells." [sic]
16. I am not remotely satisfied by the evidence in these appeal which appear to be on the basis that the 1st appellant is in fact exercising Treaty Rights despite the lack of grounds of appeal. In fact I would go as far as saying that much of the evidence could amount to a fraud
7. The appellants also did not attend the hearing before me. There was no response when the court clerk telephoned the mobile telephone numbers in the application forms and letter from the first appellant dated 24 November 2015.
8. The grounds of appeal are that:
a. The first appellant has been working in the second appellant's business since 15 April 2015, the weekly payslips and bank statements demonstrated this and the judge's reasons for finding otherwise were not "objective"
b. The second appellant had the right to run his business in the UK, confirmed by the respondent and HMRC
c. The second appellant provided a letter dated 24 November 2015 explaining why the respondent's phone calls to the business had not been answered and the First-tier Tribunal erred in declining to place weight on that letter
9. After the hearing before Judge Holt the appellants provided further original financial documents which it would appear they wish to be considered here. As those documents were not before Judge Holt they are not capable of showing error of law in his decision.
10. Ms Isherwood conceded ground (b) as the first appellant had permission to run his business under the Ankara Agreement and his wife was entitled to exercise her Treaty rights by working in the business owned by her husband. The respondent still maintained that insufficient evidence of genuine employment for the second appellant had not been provided and that First-tier Tribunal Judge Holt was entitled to refuse the appeal for the reasons given at [14] and [15] of the decision.
11. I find that I am in agreement with the respondent here. The first ground of appeal is really only a disagreement with the reasons for finding the payslips were not reliable evidence of the employment of the second appellant. The judge was not obliged to find that the bank statements were sufficient to remedy the concerns about the pay slips in the context of the difficulty the respondent had in seeking clarification by telephone. It was not disputed that the respondent had rung the business on the number provided but there had been no answer. Judge Holt was entitled to place little weight on the letter of 24 November 2015 about the unanswered telephone calls because of its format and wording.
12. The decision is not one that all judges would reach and is expressed in somewhat heightened terms. It remains the case that it was one open to Judge Holt and does not disclose error on a point of law.
Decision
13. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not disclose an error on a point of law and shall stand.

Signed: Date: 26 August 2016
Upper Tribunal Judge Pitt