Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA097692015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Birmingham Employment Centre
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 14 June 2016
On 15 June 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE McCARTHY

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

usman tahir
(no anonymity order)
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr D Mills, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr A Ali, Ash Immigration Services

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Secretary of State appeals with permission against the decision and reasons statement of First-tier Tribunal Judge Raikes that was promulgated on 2 September 2015.
2. Judge Raikes found that the Home Office had failed to discharged the burden it carried in relation of proving the respondent had used deception to secure an English test result and therefore found the respondent had met the requirements of the immigration rules. Judge Raikes made parallel findings relating to the respondent's private and family life rights.
3. Mr Mills accepted that he was in some difficulty because permission to appeal had been granted only on the Home Office's secondary argument. The first ground of appeal had argued that Judge Raikes's reasoning was inadequate with regard to his finding that deception had not been used. Judge Pullig refused permission on that ground and there was no application to the Upper Tribunal to renew that ground.
4. As we were bound by Judge Raikes' finding on that issue, Mr Mills said he could not pursue a complaint that the suitability requirements of appendix FM were not met. As the suitability requirements were met, the public interest arguments relating to article 8 in terms of the appellant not complying with the immigration rules had to fall away. This meant there was no material legal error in the decision.
5. Having heard from Mr Mills, I indicated there was no need for Mr Ali to make submissions.
6. I accept that Judge Raikes's assessment under article 8 is inadequately reasoned and that amounts to a legal error. However, it is immaterial because, when read with the preserved findings, such error cannot be material to the outcome.
Decision
Although the decision and reasons statement of Judge Raikes contains an error on a point of law because the error is not material the decision is upheld.

Signed Date 15 June 2016

Judge McCarthy
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal