Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/21349/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Decisions and Reasons Promulgated
On 16 November 2016
On 02 December 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS

Between

MR KHALID SATTAR
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R Liaquat, Anderson Rizwan, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs M O'Brien, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1) This is an appeal against a decision by Designated Judge of the First-tier Tribunal J G Macdonald dismissing an appeal under paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules.
2) The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. He most recently entered the UK in 1986. He appeals against a decision dated 21 May 2015 refusing him leave to remain.
3) The Designated Judge accepted that the appellant has lived in the UK continuously for at least 20 years prior to the date of the application, which was 30 March 2015. The judge had before him the appellant's own evidence and documentary evidence, including birth certificates for the appellant's children, born in 1986 and 1991. There was an Initial Writ at the instance of his ex-wife indicating that the parties separated around 1 May 1995. Inland Revenue documents showed the appellant was in the UK from 1996. There were also written statements supporting the appellant's length of residence.
4) Having found the appellant has been living continuously in the UK for at least 20 years up to the date of application, the judge then went on to consider if there were very significant obstacles to the appellant's integration back into Pakistan. The Designated Judge found that there were no such obstacles and dismissed the appeal under this provision and then under Article 8.
5) The application for permission to appeal points out that under paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii), where the evidence shows that an appellant has lived continuously in the UK for at least 20 years, the appellant does not also require to show that there would be very significant obstacles to integration into the country to which the appellant would be removed. This test applies under paragraph 286ADE(1)(vi). It was contended that the Designated Judge fell into error by imposing an additional test on the appellant beyond the requirements of the Immigration Rules. A challenge was also made to the decision under Article 8.
6) Permission was granted on the basis that the Designated Judge had arguably erred in relation to the application at paragraph 276ADE.
7) A rule 24 response dated 24 October 2016 on behalf of the respondent stated that the respondent did not oppose the application for permission to appeal and asked for the appeal to be determined at a fresh hearing. Having accepted that the appellant had been in the UK for more than 20 years the judge did not have to consider whether there were significant obstacles to reintegration.
8) At the hearing before me both parties were agreed that the appeal should be allowed outright under paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii) on the basis of the Designated Judge's finding as to the appellant's length of residence in the UK. It was observed that at the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal the judge recorded at paragraph 31 that both parties gave the impression that there was both a test of 20 years' residence and a test of very significant obstacles to re-integration but clearly both the Tribunal and, seemingly, the parties as well had fallen into error.
9) The findings of fact made by the Designated Judge are not challenged. The position is that the appellant has shown that he has lived continuously in the UK for at least 20 years prior to the date of the application and accordingly the requirement of paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii) is satisfied. On this basis the appeal should be allowed under the Immigration Rules.

DECISION
10) The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error or a point of law.
11) The decision is set aside.
12) The decision is re-made by allowing the appeal under the Immigration Rules.

Anonymity Order
No order for anonymity was made by the First-tier Tribunal. No application was made before me for an order and I see no reason of substance for making such an order.
Fee Award (Note: This is not part of the decision)
I have not been asked to make a fee award. It appears that as the appellant was legally aided he was exempt from paying a fee. Accordingly as no fee has been paid or is payable, no fee award is made.

Signed Date 2nd December 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Deans