Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/20209/2015
ia/20215/2015
IA/33895/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 18th April 2017
On 27th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

eva pukiova
natasha siddiqui
qasim saleem siddiqui
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellants
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: No appearance or representation
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. These are the appellants’ appeals against the decision of Judge Turnock made following a hearing at Bradford on 5th July 2015.
Background
2. The first appellant is a citizen of Slovakia, mother of the second appellant and partner of the third appellant who is a citizen of Pakistan.
3. The history of this matter is set out in the judge’s determination. There was no challenge as to the nature of the relationship between the first appellant and her partner and the sole question to be determined was whether she was economically active and therefore a worker for the purposes of Regulation 6 of the EEA Regulations, i.e. whether she was pursuing effective and genuine activity (Begum (EEA – worker – jobseeker) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 00275).
4. The judge was not satisfied that the first appellant was exercising treaty rights in the UK. He said that there were a number of inconsistencies in the documentation, which he set out, and observed that there was no evidence from the claimed employer explaining the discrepancies, and no confirmation of her earnings in the bank statements. He dismissed the appeal.
5. The appellant sought permission to appeal on the grounds that the judge did not take into account the barriers which the first appellant had faced in finding lasting employment and she was not barred from relying on support from her family in addition to paid employment.
6. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Pullig on 30th November 2016.
7. On 8th February 2017 the respondent served a reply defending the determination.
The Hearing
8. The appellant did not appear, and there was no explanation for her absence. She was served with notice at her last known address. Her solicitors were contacted and informed the clerk that they were without instructions. I decided to proceed.
9. Mr Mills submitted that the judge had reached a decision open to him on the evidence and the grounds disclosed no arguable error in law.
Findings and Conclusions
10. The first appellant may well have faced some barriers to obtaining employment in the UK but that was not the issue before the Immigration Judge. The decision he had to make was whether the first appellant met the definition of worker for the purposes of the EEA Regulations. Having reviewed the evidence he was entitled to find that she did not.
11. It was plainly open to him to take into account the fact that she had arrived in the UK in November 2013 and had not been able to obtain meaningful work at that time. The inconsistencies in the documentary evidence relating to SM Plumbing Services had therefore to be seen in the context of a person who had had difficulty, for whatever reason, in obtaining employment. The fact that the family were, according to the oral evidence, being supported by the first appellant’s sister was manifestly relevant to the question of whether the first appellant was working the number of hours which she claimed.
Notice of Decision
12. The original judge did not err in law. His decision stands. The appellants’ appeals are dismissed.
13. No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 26 April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor