Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/00170/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester Piccadilly
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 22 November 2016
On 13 December 2016

Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL

Between
RAMSHA SOHAIL AHMAD
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Sohail Ahmad Sponsor
For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. I have considered whether any parties require the protection of an anonymity direction. No anonymity direction was made previously in respect of this Appellant. Having considered all the circumstances and evidence I do not consider it necessary to make an anonymity direction.
2. In order to avoid confusion, the parties are referred to as they were in the First-tier Tribunal.
3. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Davies promulgated on 27 October 2016 which dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse her application for entry clearance as the partner of a PBS Migrant.
Background
4. The Appellant was born on 6 September 1992 and is a national of Pakistan.
5. On 23 January 2015 the Appellant and her sponsor Sohail Ahmad married in Faisalabad. At the time the Sponsor was working in the UK as a Tier 2 Migrant and had been since 2010. On 13 April 2015 the Appellant made the application the subject of this appeal in order to join her husband in the UK.
6. On 7 May 2015 the Secretary of State refused the Appellant's application. The refusal letter gave only one reason that it was not accepted that the marriage was genuine and subsisting because there was no evidence that the Sponsor had returned to Pakistan since their marriage and she had never visited him in the UK and there was no evidence that they were in regular contact and therefore engaged in an ongoing relationship and had 'chosen to live in different countries.'
The Judge's Decision
7. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. First-tier Tribunal Judge Davies ("the Judge") allowed the appeal against the Respondent's decision. The Judge found on the basis of the documentary evidence and the oral evidence of the Sponsor that he could be satisfied that theirs was a genuine and subsisting marriage.
8. Grounds of appeal were lodged arguing that there was no recital of the credible evidence given by the sponsor or reasons why the Judge found him to be credible and on 1 August 2016 Designated Judge Shaerf gave permission to appeal.
9. At the hearing I heard submissions from Mr Harrison on behalf of the Respondent that he relied on the grounds of appeal that were very short but in essence were that the reasons given for allowing the appeal were inadequate.
10. Mr Ahmad stated that he gave evidence for about 20 minutes before the Judge. He asked the Sponsor about the various ways that he communicated with his wife and when was the last time they spoke to each other. He asked me why, given the time and expense of such an application , they would make such an application if their marriage were not genuine.
The Law
11. Errors of legislative interpretation, failure to follow binding authority or to distinguish it with adequate reasons, ignoring material considerations by taking into account immaterial considerations, reaching irrational conclusions on facts or evaluation or giving legally inadequate reasons for the decision and procedural unfairness, constitute errors of law.
Finding on Material Error
12. Having heard those submissions I reached the conclusion that the Tribunal made no material errors of law.
13. The decision in this case is a very short one but I am satisfied that the issue was a narrow one: was the marriage genuine and subsisting. The evidence in the Respondents bundle before the Judge was clear that the Respondent acknowledged that the parties were, in law, married as their application had been accompanied by a copy of their marriage certificate, photographs of the wedding and a copy of the Sponsors passport showing that he was in Pakistan at the time of the marriage.
14. The application for entry clearance, it might be argued, was made very promptly after their marriage in April 2015 so it would have been open to the Judge to remark that the refusal letter was unjustified in arguing that there had been no visits in either direction after the marriage.
15. The Judge had before him further documentary evidence that again confirmed that the Sponsor had been to Pakistan at the time of the marriage in the form of flights confirmation. He had before him the Grounds of Appeal in which the Appellant argued that she had provided the evidence required in the UKBA website for such an application and not provided anything else as it was not asked for but stating that they had maintained contact after marriage by Skype, Whats App and Viber. The Judge also heard evidence from the Sponsor at the hearing and he summarised it very briefly at paragraph 7 focusing on the issues raised in the refusal letter that might arguably have any merit: the level of communication which he asserted was daily as the Appellant had stated in the grounds, how long they had known each other (10years) and how they knew each other(they were members of a small Ahmadhi community). It does not appear from the Judges notes that the Home Office Presenting Officer challenged the sponsor by way of cross examination.
16. I am satisfied that having heard that evidence the Judge was not required to recite it again in his findings. He found at paragraph 10 that the evidence of the Sponsor was credible and was supported by documentary evidence which given that it was unchallenged by the Respondent in court and consistent with that provided by his wife the Appellant was a finding that was open to him.
17. I remind myself of what was said in Shizad (sufficiency of reasons: set aside) Afghanistan [2013] UKUT 85 (IAC) about the requirement for sufficient reasons to be given in a decision in headnote (1) : "Although there is a legal duty to give a brief explanation of the conclusions on the central issue on which an appeal is determined, those reasons need not be extensive if the decision as a whole makes sense, having regard to the material accepted by the judge."
18. I was therefore satisfied that the Judge's determination when read as a whole set out findings that were sustainable and sufficiently detailed and based on cogent reasoning.

CONCLUSION
19. I therefore found that no errors of law have been established and that the Judge's determination should stand.

DECISION
20. The appeal is dismissed.

Signed Date 11.12.2016
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Birrell