Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-NL-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/17576/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Newport
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 8 December 2016
On 16 March 2017
Prepared 8 December 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVEY

Between

MS ALVINA CHIBHAMU
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr O Manley Counsel instructed by Turpin & Miller LLP
For the Respondent: Mr I Richards, Senior Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant, a national of Zimbabwe, appealed against the Respondent’s decision ,dated 23 April 2015, to refuse leave to remain.
2. The appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Page who, on 9 March 2016, dismissed the appeal with reference to the Immigration Rules and in relation to Article 8 ECHR although one has to say the format of that decision in this respect is somewhat inadequate.
3. Permission to appeal was given on 9 August 2016 and the Secretary of State made a Rule 24 response on 16 August 2016.
4. Mr Manley takes a significant number of points against the decision.
5. I am satisfied that in one important and particular respect the basis of the judge’s approach was flawed.
6. It is accepted by Mr Richards, quite correctly, that the judge did not address the correct considerations arising under paragraph 279ADE(1)(vi) of Immigration Rules of whether or not there were very significant obstacles to a return and integration into Zimbabwe if required to leave the United Kingdom. It is clear that the judge concentrated on the issue of whether there were ties to people whom the Appellant might know and people she could turn to. Those are two considerations which are part of the wider issue of the assessment of the obstacles faced on return.
7. It appears in the light of information contained before the judge that other matters were raised which are not addressed by the judge who concentrates simply on those two points. In the circumstances, whilst Mr Richards rightly says, as does the Rule 24 response, on a fair reading of paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, it is possible to take the view that quite simply had the judge looked at it in the correct way the same outcome would have been reached. That is in many cases a very fair point to make and it seems to me in this case the difficulty is that this, against its own factual background, is a case of significance both in terms of the longevity of relationships that have existed but also the extent to which the impact of removal is significant not just upon the Appellant’s partner but also children with whom she has now been associated for a number of years. That, if it is correctly approached, may still lead to the question of how the judge addressed Article 8 and the considerations of whether or not there were circumstances outside of the Immigration Rules that justified its consideration.
8. I have to say I have not read a more confused series of paragraphs in some time in relation to this issue where it seems to me the judge intended to conclude that Article 8 could not be engaged outside of the Rules. His reasoning for reaching that conclusion is so unclear that one may not necessarily have confidence it was correctly addressed, even if the judge had properly addressed the paragraph 276ADE considerations. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the Original Tribunal decision cannot stand. The matter will have to be re-made again in the First-tier Tribunal.
DIRECTIONS
1. Hearing – 3 hours. Not before F-t T Judge Page
2. No interpreter required.
3. The Appellant’s representatives to readdress the sufficiency of the bundles addressing these issues and in particular any Article 8 issues that will fall to be considered at the date when the matter is re-made.
4. No findings of fact to stand unless at the hearing the parties are agreed as to the matters which should.

No anonymity direction is made.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey

P.S. I regret this decision drafted on 8 December 2016 has been delayed in promulgation. This has been due to the file being miss-located.