Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-LW-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/18182/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19th January 2017
On 13th February 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

mr Yakobo Ssekisonge
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss Appiah
For the Respondent: Mr Tufan

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the appeal of Mr Yakobo Sssekisonge against the decision of Judge Ross made following a hearing at Hatton Cross on 12th July 2015.
2. The appellant has a complex immigration history, as does that of his partner. Suffice it to say that he came to the UK on 29th August 2009 on a spouse visa. He subsequently made an application for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of his marriage to a British citizen, but his partner's citizenship was subsequently nullified and the application was refused. That nullification has been challenged by judicial review proceedings and I am told that a date has now been set for the JR, the 24th March 2017. In the interim the appellant's partner has been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a refugee.
3. The judge dealt with the present application for leave to remain on human rights grounds and dismissed the appeal.
4. There were a number of challenges to his decision, both within and out with the Immigration Rules. Miss Appiah confirmed at the hearing that the application within the Immigration Rules was not being pursued because the appellant is not in a position to meet the requirements of EX.1. At present he has only six months leave to remain in the UK and therefore cannot navigate through to the provisions of EX.1. She did however maintain the challenge to the decision on the basis that the judge had failed to consider the best interests of the child, who is now 17 years old.
5. Mr Tufan did not seek to defend this determination.
6. It is set aside. The judge erred in law in failing to have regard to the best interests of the child. He did not consider Section 55 as a primary consideration in the appeal and failed to apply the law under Section 117 in deciding whether it was reasonable for him to be removed. The child has lived in the UK continuously for over seven years and is at a crucial stage in his education.
7. Furthermore, the judge failed to consider a sizeable bundle of evidence submitted with the appeal.
8. Both parties agreed that the proper course would be to remit this appeal to be heard before the First-tier Tribunal, but when the outcome of the JR hearing is known. The matter should be set down for hearing not before 1st May 2017. Miss Appiah undertook to inform the Tribunal if there is any delay in the outcome of the JR being known so that an adjournment application could be made, since it is clear that the outcome of the JR is essential for the disposal of this appeal.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 2 February 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor