Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/17344/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 1st September 2016
On 6th September 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

Salman Ahmed
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Bashir Consultancy
For the Respondent: Mr A McVeety, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the appellant's appeal against the decision of Judge Saffer made following a hearing at Bradford on 11th November 2015.
Background
2. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He applied for leave to remain as the spouse of a British citizen but was refused on 29th April 2015 on the ground that the Secretary of State did not accept that the couple were in a genuine and subsisting relationship.
3. The matter came before Immigration Judge Saffer.
4. With respect to the marriage he said:
"I accept that he and Mrs Begum have jointly produced a child. I accept they live together. I am satisfied that she was correct in the answers she gave in the interview as the marriage means more to her than him. I am satisfied that whilst it is a genuine relationship on her part it is not on his and he has only entered it to try and stay here."
5. So far as the child was concerned the judge said that his nationality was not a trump card and that his best interests lay in remaining with his mother. He then said:
"The only unusual about this case is how profoundly weak it is. It borders on being abusive of the application and appeal system. There is nothing compelling or exceptional. There will be no 'unjustifiable hardship'. The speed the family are able to meet the requirements of the Rules is in their hands."
6. The appellant sought permission to appeal on rather generalised grounds.
7. On 11th July 2016 Judge Scott-Baker granted permission stating that the judge had failed to give any consideration to Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and had given no reasons for finding that the relationship was genuine on the sponsor's part but not so far as the appellant was concerned.
8. On 27th July 2016 the respondent served a reply defending the decision.
9. At the hearing it transpired that the representative was on holiday. Moreover no interpreter had been booked. However, Mr McVeety, having initially considered that the brief determination could have been sustained, because the judge had found that the couple were not in a genuine relationship, acknowledged its deficiencies. He did not argue against it being set aside.
10. The determination cannot stand. First, the judge gave no reasons at all for concluding that one party to the marriage was in a genuine relationship but the other was not. Second there is no proper analysis of the best interests of the British citizen child, all the more surprising in the light of the respondent's own guidelines in these cases.
Notice of Decision
The decision of Judge Saffer is set aside. It should be remade afresh by a judge other than Judge Saffer in the First-tier Tribunal at Bradford on a date and time to be fixed.
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 5 September 2016
Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor