IA/19938/2015

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/19938/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester, Piccadilly
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 20th September 2016
On 28th September 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN


Between

Valentine [E]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss E Cantor (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr C Bates (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an application to the Upper Tribunal by the Appellant, with permission, against a judgment of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Holt) promulgated on 8th January 2016 in which she dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse him leave to remain on the basis of his family life with his daughter.
2. As pointed out by the Upper Tribunal Judge who granted permission to appeal, the First-tier Tribunal based its findings solely on the basis of documents, including Cafcass documents in family proceedings then ongoing. The Appellant had no authority from the Family Court to disclose those documents and to do so is a contempt of court. He was of course unrepresented and may not have appreciated that. However the Judge was not entitled to take them into account without the Family Court's consent and in placing reliance on them she committed a procedural error. As those documents were the basis upon which she reached her decision it follows that the decision must be set aside in its entirety.
3. It is right in these circumstances that the Appellant should have his case reheard de novo in the First-tier Tribunal.
4. I note that he has made efforts, as yet unsuccessful, to obtain the consent of the Family Court. It would probably be quicker if the Resident Judge at the appropriate First-tier Tribunal hearing centre were to make a request under the Family Court Protocol Procedure. As I am in fact the relevant Resident Judge I indicated that I would apply under the Protocol

Notice of Decision
The appeal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted for hearing de novo in the First-tier Tribunal at Manchester.
No anonymity direction having been requested none is made.


Signed Date 22nd September 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin