Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/21481/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Newport (Columbus House)
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 29 March 2017
On 3 April 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

m s s (1)
V N (2)
M Y S (3)
M Y S (4)
E S (5)
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Respondents

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr D Mills, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr M Trevelyan instructed by Malik Legal Solicitors Ltd

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Respondents. This direction applies to both the appellant and to the respondents and a failure to comply with this direction could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings.
2. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge K Real) which allowed the appeals of the Respondents under Art 8 of the ECHR.
3. The Respondents are a family comprising a married couple and their three children. Judge Real’s decision was based on the finding that the third respondent (the family’s eldest child) was a “qualifying child” within s.117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as he had lived in the UK for ten years and it would not be reasonable to expect him to leave the UK. Therefore, applying s.117B(6) the public interest did not require his removal. It was conceded by the Presenting Officer at the hearing before Judge Real that if s.117B(6) applied then the consequence would be that the whole family, including the parents, should remain in the UK on the basis of Art 8. Consequently, Judge Real allowed each of the respondents’ appeals.
4. Permission was sought by the Secretary of State, inter alia on the basis that the judge had failed to give adequate reasons for her finding that it would be unreasonable for the eldest child to leave the UK and return to Pakistan. Permission to appeal was granted on that ground by the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Keane) on 7 November 2016.
5. At the hearing before me, Mr Mills who represented the Secretary of State informed me that the eldest child had been registered as a British citizen. In the light of that, Mr Mills accepted that he could not argue that it would be reasonable to require the third respondent to leave the UK and that any remaking of the decision, even if an error of law was established, would inevitably result in the appeals being allowed.
6. Consequently, Mr Mills indicated that the Secretary of State no longer sought to challenge the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to allow each of the appeals under Art 8 and he invited me to dismiss the Secretary of State’s appeal and allow the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to stand.
Decision
7. In the light of that, I dismiss the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
8. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow the appeals under Art 8 of the ECHR stands.

Signed

A Grubb
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Date 31 March 2017

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

Judge Real made a whole fee award of £140 and I see no basis to depart from that conclusion and none was suggested to me. Consequently, I affirm the whole fee award of £140.

Signed

A Grubb
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Date 31 March 2017