Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/24443/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Royal Courts of Justice - Belfast
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 1 August 2016
On 18 August 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O'CONNOR

Between

RANA PRADIP SINGHA
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation

For the Appellant: Mr D Jones, instructed by McCallion Keown
For the Respondent: Mr M Matthews, Senior Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. At the outset of the hearing I made an anonymity direction, however, given the path the hearing took I now set aside such direction.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh born 1 January 1979. On 15 February 2013 he made an application for an EEA permanent residence card, having previously been issued with a residence card, valid for 5 years, as the spouse of a Ms Periera. The SSHD refused such application by way of a decision dated 8 November 2013.
3. The appellant was unsuccessful in his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT"), Judge Fox concluding, inter alia, that: (i) the appellant's marriage to Ms Pereira had been one of convenience and, therefore, could not be relied upon by the appellant to found a claim under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006; and, (ii) that, in any event, it had not been established that Ms Pereira was a qualified person (a worker in the instant case) during the entirety of the relevant 5-year period and, as a consequence, the appellant had not established an entitlement to permanent residence.
4. By way of a decision of the 21 October 2015 the President of the Upper Tribunal set aside the FtT's decision concluding, inter alia, that the FtT had misdirected itself as to the appropriate burden and standard of proof on both the issue of marriage of convenience and the genuineness of the financial documentation relied on by the appellant in support of the contention that his wife had been in work during the relevant periods.
5. Thus the matter came before me to remake the decision under appeal. The appellant gave lengthy oral evidence in support of his claims, initially asserting both the genuineness of his marriage and of the documentation relied upon in support of his wife's claimed economic activity. As the cross-examination of the appellant evolved his answers became ever vaguer and more inconsistent. After over an hour of evidence the appellant admitted defeat and accepted that he had lied about the fact that his wife had been working in the UK in the period after 2010.
6. This evidence of itself, and certainly in combination with the contradictions and variations in the appellant's account given over the preceding hour, led to it being inevitable that his appeal would dismissed. At this juncture I rose to allow Mr Jones to take instructions, which he did with the assistance of the court interpreter.
7. Upon return Mr Jones sought the Tribunal's consent for the appellant to withdraw his case. In the absence of any objection from Mr Matthews I gave such consent. As a consequence of the appellant withdrawing his case before the Upper Tribunal I formally dismiss his appeal.
8. I will only add that the appellant's legal representatives before the Upper Tribunal (both solicitor and counsel) have conducted themselves in nothing other than in a proper manner. They, like the SSHD and the Tribunal, have been subjected to the appellant's deception and I have no doubt that each properly put the appellant's case forward on the basis of the instructions provided to them - as they were entitled to do.

Decision

For the reasons given above the appellant's appeal is dismissed

Signed:

Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor
1 August 2016