HU/01136/2019

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

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/01136/2019


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24th July 2014
On 6th August 2019



Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley


Between

M n
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADe)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Rashid Ahmed
For the Respondent: Mr Tan, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


REASONS FOR FINDING AN ERROR OF LAW

1. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan who made application to the Secretary of State for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his Article 8 rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The respondent refused to grant the appellant leave on 10th January 2019 and the appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal was heard in Manchester on 16th April, 2019 by First-tier Tribunal Judge Mark Davies.

2. The judge concluded that there was no family life between the appellant and his daughter and then went on in the alternative to find that if he was wrong in that the decision of the respondent was proportionate. The determination was challenged on behalf of the appellant on the basis of the decisions in Berrehab v the Netherlands [1989] 11 EHRR 322 and Gul v Switzerland [1996] 22 EHRR 92.

3. It was agreed between the representatives who appeared before me today that the determination could not stand and must be set aside. I agree.

4. I set aside the determination of Immigration Judge Mark Davies and remit this appeal for hearing afresh by the First-tier Tribunal, given that effectively the appellant has been denied a fair hearing. Two hours should be allowed for the hearing and a Punjabi interpreter will be required.


Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Richard Chalkley
Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley Date 30 July 2019