IA/23396/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 14 Dec 2016
• Promulgation date: 15 Dec 2016
• Publication date: 12 Feb 2021
• Last updated on: 12 Feb 2021

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/23396/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 14 December 2016
On 15 December 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEKI?


Between

MOHAMED SAMROOS ABDUL SAMAD
(anonymity order not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Chohan, Solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr P Armstrong, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a national of Sri Lanka born on 7 May 1989. He entered the UK as a student and when his leave was curtailed, he applied for a residence card as the unmarried partner of an EEA national.

2. The appeal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ghani by way of a determination promulgated on 25 May 2016.

3. Permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins on 16 November 2016 but alerting the parties to the effect of the decision in Sala (EFMs: right of appeal) [2016] UKUT 00411 (IAC) where it had held by the Tribunal that there was no statutory right of appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a residence card to an extended family member of an EEA national.

4. At the hearing before me both parties were agreed that there was no valid appeal. Mr Chohan explained that the appellant had now married his partner in a religious ceremony and required a certified copy of his identity documents in order to have a civil marriage.

5. At the conclusion of the hearing I indicated that I concurred with the submissions and that my determination would follow.

6. As the unmarried partner of the sponsor at the date of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal Judge, the appellant was an extended family member. He, therefore, falls within the category of persons that the Tribunal dealt with in Sala. On the reasoning of that appeal, the First-tier Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the refusal to document him as the EFM of the sponsor. It does not matter that Sala was promulgated after the appellant's determination as the judgment sets out the law as it should have been applied regardless of when the appeal was heard. It follows that the determination is rendered void.

7. Decision

8. There was no appeal before the First-tier Tribunal to determine. The determination is set aside and the appellant's appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


Signed




Upper Tribunal Judge

Date: 14 December 2016