Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/08042/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 29th March 2017
On 13th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD

Between

THE Secretary of State FOR THE Home Department
Appellant
and

MRS RAHAMATA ABUBAKARI SADICK
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION nOT MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr L Tarlow, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr M Haruna, Solicitor

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) is a national of Ghana who applied for a residence card as confirmation of a right to reside here. That was refused by the Secretary of State and the claimant’s subsequent appeal (on the papers) was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Head-Rapson in a decision promulgated on 20th October 2016.
2. The Secretary of State lodged Grounds of Appeal setting out that the judge had applied the wrong test in paragraph 12, namely considering whether the claimant had resided here for five years rather than considering whether the Sponsor had been exercising treaty rights for a five year continuous period. The grounds were found to be arguable. A Rule 24 response was lodged by agents for the claimant, submitting that although the decision contained typographical errors the judge had, in fact, applied the correct test.
3. Before me Mr Tarlow for the Secretary of State relied on his grounds. In particular the judge had been wrong in paragraph 12 to say that the issue was whether the “Appellant has evidence to prove she has resided in the UK for a continuous period of five years”. The documentation supplied by the claimant was not enough and the decision should be set aside and re-made in favour of the Secretary of State.
4. For the Claimant Mr Haruna said he was relying on the terms of the Rule 24 notice. The documentation had been produced to the judge to show that the Sponsor did have a permanent right of residence. When the judge said in paragraph 14 that the “Appellant” had provided documentation in terms of P60s etc., these were in fact documents of the Sponsor.
5. The errors of the judge were only typographical and as such the decision should not be disturbed as there was no material error in law. I reserved my decision.
Conclusions
6. It has to be said that the judge does appear to have become muddled in paragraphs 12 and 14 in referring to the “Appellant” as the issue before the judge was whether the Sponsor had been exercising treaty rights for the requisite period of time.
7. Nevertheless, what was before the judge were the documents contained in the claimant’s bundle, and in particular I was referred to the document at F7 which is a letter to the Sponsor from the Department for Work and Pensions acknowledging that he does have the right of permanent residence here. It follows from that document that the claimant had shown the Sponsor had discharged the burden of demonstrating that he had been exercising treaty rights here for the requisite period of time.
8. Given the terms of that letter, the judge was therefore entitled to find that the claimant had discharged the burden of proof on her as the judge duly found in paragraph 15. There is thus no material error of law and the terms of the decision must stand.
Notice of Decision
9. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
10. I do not set aside the decision.
No anonymity direction is required or made.

Signed JG Macdonald Date 10th April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge J G Macdonald