Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU 07664 2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 12 December 2016
On 11 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

Between

m u
(Anonymity direction in force)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: He did not appear and was not represented.
For the Respondent: Mr S Staunton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I make an order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Breach of this order can be punished as a contempt of court. I make this order because the reasons for the decision involve consideration of minor children who are entitled to privacy.
2. This is an appeal by a citizen of Pakistan against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State on 25 September 2015 refusing him leave to remain on human rights grounds.
3. His personal circumstances are a little complex. He says that he is in a close relationship with a woman who for convenience I will call "SK". He says that they have an Islamic marriage and they entered into that arrangement on 1 January 2015. SK has several children but they do not live with her.
4. There is particular concern about one of SK's children, her daughter aged 14 who I will call "D", because it is said that she is in an emotionally frail state and there is talk that she is suicidal. If there is any truth in that it is entirely understandable that her mother would not want to be very far away even though she does not live with the child.
5. The First-tier Tribunal found that the Appellant was not in a parental relationship with that child and therefore the case was not within 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Although this is a finding that concerned the judge who gave permission I see no error in it whatsoever. The child is not the child of the Appellant, does not live with the Appellant and I do not see any basis for criticising the decision that the Appellant does not have a subsisting parental relationship with that child or indeed with any other. With that finding then the biggest barrier to his leaving the United Kingdom disappears.
6. Clearly he will have strong feelings towards the woman that he lives with but the grounds do not say why a reasonably short period of separation from his partner in the United Kingdom whilst he sorted out his immigration status from Pakistan is unacceptable or indeed if a short period of separation of his partner from her daughter and other children in the United Kingdom would be unacceptable if his partner chose to travel with him.
7. I emphasise that although very serious claims are made about the mental health of the partner's child there is no medical evidence whatsoever to substantiate it and that is an extremely surprising omission. The First-tier Tribunal was not satisfied that there was in fact any such threat and there was good reason for that dissatisfaction. Once that is appreciated it is hard to see how this decision can be criticised.
8. This is a very common story of a person in a relationship in the United Kingdom that is not a marriage or a durable relationship within the rules and I see no basis for criticising the decision that the Appellant's removal would not interfere disproportionately with his private and family life. Any disruption would be essentially of limited duration whilst he organises his affairs to satisfy the requirements of the Rules if that is what he wanted to do and there is no basis in law for finding that that is contrary to anyone's human rights.
9. I made this decision without the benefit of any submission from the Appellant. The case came before me for consideration at about half past twelve. Enquiries were made to ensure there was no trace of the Appellant in the building. There was not. There is no legal representation. The papers show that the service of the notice of hearing and indeed a Rule 24 response from the Secretary of State was sent to the person's last known address.
10. In the circumstances I am satisfied on the evidence that he has proper knowledge and in the absence of proper explanation or any explanation for his absence I proceeded to continue with the appeal which I dismiss for the reasons given above.

Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed.

Signed

Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Dated 10 January 2017