IA/04133/2021

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

The decision


IAC-AH-SAR-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2022-000208
EA/50916/2021 [IA/04133/2021]


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 20 April 2022
Extempore decision
On the 27 June 2022


Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

Mr tahir mahmood
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Iqbal, Iqbal Law Chambers
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Parkes dated 2 February 2022.
2. A material issue before the judge was whether the appellant was dependent on the sponsor. The judge found that there was not dependency. The main reason given was that the appellant did not provide a witness statement or any other evidence about his circumstances. In paragraph 14 the judge stated:
“There is no witness statement from the appellant explaining his circumstances, when he became dependent and setting out how his finances were. I bear in mind that the burden is on the appellant not the sponsor to demonstrate that he meets the Regulations”.
3. However, the appellant did in fact submit a witness statement. As Mr Tufan accepted, the judge appears to have overlooked, and to not have taken into consideration, evidence that was before him: the appellant’s witness statement.
4. The error is material because the appellant’s witness statement provides evidence that, if accepted, would establish dependency.
5. It appears to me that in the absence of his witness statement being considered the appellant has not had the benefit of a full and proper hearing of his appeal. I therefore, having regard to para 7.2(a) of the relevant Senior President’s Practice Statement, consider it appropriate for this matter to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be considered afresh before a different judge with no findings preserved.
Notice of decision
6. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh by a different judge.



Signed

D. Sheridan




Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan

Dated: 5 May 2022