Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/24399/2015
IA/24400/2015
IA/24401/2015
IA/24402/2015
IA/24403/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24 October 2016
On 14 November 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

Between

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

[M S]
First Respondent

[G F]
Second Respondent

[M A]
Third Respondent

[M H]
Fourth Respondent

[Z B S]
Fifth Respondent

ANONYMITY ORDER MADE

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms A Brocklesby-Weller, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondents: Mr C Mahfuz, Counsel, instructed by Malik Law Chambers Solicitors (Bethnal Green Road)
DECISION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I make an order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the respondent. Breach of this order can be punished as a contempt of court. I make this order because a similar order was made in the First-tier Tribunal and some of the Respondents are minors.
2. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing the appeal of five members of the same family against a decision of the Secretary of State on 18 June 2015 to refuse them leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
3. The respondents are all citizens of Pakistan. The first and second respondents are married to each other. The other respondents their minor children. Of particular concern to me is the welfare of the third and fourth respondents who were born in Pakistan but who have lived in the United Kingdom for a large part of their lives, in fact since 26 June 2008.
4. Ms Brocklesby-Weller very properly immediately drew my attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case reported as MA (Pakistan) & Ors, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal [2016] EWCA Civ 705. That was an appeal that concerned several cases brought by families and particularly children who wished to remain in the United Kingdom and the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the proper approach to be taken when determining what was reasonable in the case of a child being removed.
5. In this case, without the benefit of the guidance in MA, the First-tier Tribunal Judge decided that it was not reasonable for the third and fourth children to be removed and particularly not the third child, who suffers from cerebral palsy and benefits from the quite extensive regime of support provided largely through the school in the United Kingdom.
6. Whether the Secretary of State would have bothered challenging the decision if the decision in MA (Pakistan) had been available when the grounds had to be prepared is a matter for conjecture but it is exceedingly difficult in the light of the decision in MA to identify any error of law on the part of the First-tier Tribunal Judge. I have considered the papers and I am entirely satisfied that there is nothing unlawful about the First-tier Tribunal's decision. There is no irrationality or no incorrect direction of law.
7. It follows therefore that the decision to allow the appeal for the sake of the children was entirely open to the judge and the decision to allow the appeal of the other members of the family consequentially was a necessary decision which is not independently challenged. It follows therefore that I dismiss the appeal of the Secretary of State against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal in all cases and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal will stand.
Notice of Decision
8. The Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed.

Signed

Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Dated 14 November 2016