Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA061602015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6th June 2016
On 14th April 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAINI

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

Mrs Ashna Abdulrahman Awla
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr D Mills, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr J Trussler, Counsel, instructed by First Choice Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. For ease of comprehension the parties are referred to by their status before the First-tier Tribunal.
2. The Secretary of State appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Howard allowing the Appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision dated 28th January 2015 notifying the Appellant of her liability to removal pursuant to Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and refusing to vary leave to remain in the UK pursuant to Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules.
3. The First-tier Tribunal promulgated its decision allowing the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision on 22nd July 2015. The Respondent appealed against that decision and was granted permission to appeal by Designated First-tier Tribunal Judge Garratt. The grounds upon which permission to appeal was granted may be summarised as follows.
(i) It is arguable that the judge did not apply the provisions of Section 117B of the 2002 Act correctly. In particular the judge was wrong to allow the appeal on the basis that the Appellant would be taking a course in the English language and failed to take into account the public interest in a person seeking to enter or remain in the UK who could already speak English.
Error of Law
4. At the close of submissions I indicated that I would reserve my decision. I find that there is no error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision. My reasons for so finding are as follows.
5. Mr Mills submitted that it was in the public interest that people applying for leave to remain needed to speak English according to Section 117B(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. However, Mr Mills said that the considerations under 117B(2) are such that the judge simply needed to take into account and have regard to those considerations, which he accepts the judge did do.
6. Mr Trussler, advancing upon this position, highlighted quite rightly that the judge at paragraph 23 of his determination set out the entirety of Section 117B that was relevant to the appeal. The judge went on to consider the public interest in explicit terms finding that in relation to 117B(2), which concerns that the public interest is focussed upon persons being able to speak English because that ability will make them less of a burden on taxpayers and be better able to integrate into society.
7. The judge considered these very factors in his determination given that he found that the husband was in employment and as such the Appellant would "not be a burden to the taxpayer" and in respect of paragraph 117B(2)(b) that the Appellant was "integrating herself into society through the work she was doing at college". Consequently it cannot be said that the judge failed to consider or have regard to the public interest considerations specified under Section 117B of the 2002 Act nor that he failed to consider the public interest in reaching his decision.
Notice of Decision
8. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand and is hereby affirmed.

Signed Date 10 June 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saini