Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number HU/09002/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 14th November 2016
On 23rd November 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

AJMAL SHUKRUDDIN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms J Isherwood (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant entered the UK in May 2007 and having been refused asylum was granted Discretionary Leave to Remain in the UK until the 23rd of January 2016. Before that leave expired he applied for further leave under the parent route, in rejecting the application the Secretary of State considered both that and the 10 year route. The Appellant appealed but did not seek an oral hearing so the appeal was considered on the papers.
2. The appeal was dealt with by First-tier Tribunal Judge Whitcombe who dismissed the appeal in a decision promulgated on the 5th of July 2016. The Judge noted in paragraph 9 that there was very little evidence which he listed in paragraph 10. There were no witness statements or any description of the Appellant's life in the UK. By paragraph 24 the judge described the evidence as scant, the nationalities or immigration status of his partner and children was not known and there was no evidence dealing with the prospect of life outside the UK. The appeal was dismissed under the Immigration Rules and article 8.
3. The Appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in grounds of the 30th of June 2016. The grounds were to the effect that his children, whose names and dates of birth were given, had been born in the UK and he had been with his partner for 9 years. If he were to be removed his partner's other children would suffer as they regard him as a father figure they would be affected in all kinds of ways.
4. Permission was granted by Judge Frankish who noted the almost complete absence of evidence from the case and observed that the Appellant had been his own worst enemy in seeking a paper hearing. Although not raised by the Appellant Judge Frankish thought that there might be an argument in relation to section 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the presumption in relation to parents.
5. At the hearing before the Upper Tribunal the Appellant and his partner attended without representation. The limits to the hearing were explained and the limited role of the Upper Tribunal was made clear. The Appellant's partner expressed her concern that the Appellant had previously been granted leave and it appeared that they had assumed that any further applications would proceed on the basis of information that they had provided in the past.
6. I can understand that in their personal circumstances the Appellant and Sponsor may not have found it easy to obtain legal assistance and with their assuming that evidence previously submitted would automatically be considered they chose not to instruct a lawyer or other adviser. However, each decision can only be made on the information that is provided. One reason for requiring evidence with each application is that circumstances may change and so evidence is needed to show what all the circumstances are.
7. In order for the Upper Tribunal to interfere with a First-tier Tribunal decision it would have to be shown that the First-tier Tribunal Judge had made a decision that was not available on the evidence presented or was legally wrong for a different reason such as a lack of jurisdiction. In this case, for the reasons set out above, the Judge had effectively no evidence that addressed any of the issues that had to be considered. There was not even any evidence to show that status of the Appellant's partner or her children and in those circumstances the Judge's hands were tied.

CONCLUSIONS
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I do not set aside the decision.

Anonymity
The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 and I make no order.

Fee Award
In dismissing this appeal I make no fee award.

Signed:

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (IAC)

Dated: 22nd November 2016