Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA011622015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 15 June 2016
On 17 June 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

KA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Brocklesby-Weller a Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Ahmed a Solicitor

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. For the purpose of continuity with the determination in the First-tier Tribunal I will hereinafter refer to the Secretary of State as the Respondent and KA as the Appellant.

2. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify the Appellant or any of his family members. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to contempt of court proceedings. I do so in order to preserve the anonymity of the Appellant's step child ("JB") who is a minor and whose circumstances form the heart of this case.

3. The Respondent refused the Appellant's application for leave to remain on 10 December 2014. His appeal against this was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Gandhi ("the Judge") following a hearing on 15 July 2015.

The Judge's findings

4. In summary the Judge found that it would be unreasonable for JB to be required to leave the United Kingdom, and that there were insurmountable obstacles to family life with her mother (his spouse) continuing outside the United Kingdom. JB was born on 21 April 1998, is a British citizen, and was taking 'A' levels. She had filed a statement and gave unchallenged oral evidence [52] that they had a very close relationship, she considered him to be her father, he attends parent's evenings, and they go out shopping together. She would be very upset if he went back to Bangladesh.

5. The Judge found [163] that the family witnesses were credible, the Appellant and JB have a genuine and subsisting relationship, [164] JB is at a critical stage of her education as she is in the middle of her 'A' levels, and any disruption to her studies at this stage could be detrimental to her future ability to get a job or continue in her studies. She was born and brought up in the United Kingdom and there was no evidence she had ever been to Bangladesh and all her life has been here as a British Citizen. They have a very close bond [167] and understandably, especially after the death of her father, she would be devastated to lose another 'father' albeit for different reasons.

The grant of permission

6. First-tier Tribunal Judge Frankish granted permission to appeal (24 May 2016) on the grounds that it is arguable that "the finding that the appellant needs to remain ? for the well being of the youngest step child lacks reasoning."

Respondent's position

7. There was inadequate evidence of the close bond the Judge found to exist as the Appellant had only lived in the same household as JB for 11 months as at the date of hearing.

Appellant's position

8. There was no rule 24 notice. Having heard from Ms Brocklesby-Weller I indicated that I did not need to hear from Mr Hussain as there was plainly no merit in the application for the following reasons which I gave at the hearing.

Discussion

9. The Respondent's position, as conceded by Ms Brocklesby-Weller, merely amounts to a disagreement with the findings the Judge made and to which I have referred above. Having made those findings, the Judge was entitled to find that it would be unreasonable to require JB to leave the United Kingdom to retain her family life with him and that there were insurmountable obstacles to it continuing abroad.

10. I am not therefore satisfied that the Judge made a material error of law.

Decision:

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.

Signed:
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
16 June 2016