Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-DP-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/26443/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 9 December 2016
On 09 January 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

the Secretary of State for the home department

Appellant
and

MR SHANE [R]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr S Walker, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Ms K Tobin, Counsel instructed by MA Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This appeal arises from the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the respondent's application for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of his private and family life. The respondent's ensuing appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Pacey. In a decision promulgated on 7 July 2016, the judge allowed the appeal.
Background
2. The respondent is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago who came to the UK in August 2002 as a visitor. He was granted further leave as a student until 23 August 2006. On 10 August 2006 he applied for further leave but was refused and remained thereafter without lawful leave.
3. The factual findings of Judge Pacey, which are not in dispute, can be summarised as follows:
(a) the appellant has serious mental health problems for which he requires medication and there is a high risk of relapse if he fails to take the medication;
(b) he has been an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital;
(c) he is vulnerable requiring ongoing support from mental health services;
(d) his mother is a mental health nurse who gives him considerable support.
4. The judge also found that mental health facilities in Trinidad and Tobago are minimal. He further found that the appellant's mother could not reasonably be expected to go with him to Trinidad due to her British citizenship and career in the UK.
5. At paragraph 16 the judge concluded:
"[I]n my judgment then there will be very significant obstacles to [the respondent's] integration into Trinidad and Tobago since in summary he would be alone in that country vulnerable and highly at risk".
6. After concluding that there would be "very significant obstacles" to integration, the judge proceeded to consider the appeal under Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules and concluded that the factual circumstances give rise to circumstances such that the respondent's removal from the UK would be a disproportionate interference with his family and private life.
Grounds of appeal and submissions
7. There are two grounds of appeal. The first ground is that the judge gave no reasons for allowing the appeal under the Immigration Rules. The grounds state that this aspect of the decision is "wholly unreasoned".
8. The second ground of appeal challenges the Article 8 assessment outside the Rules, arguing that the judge erred in law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public interest in the proportionality assessment.
9. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Keane. Judge Keane granted permission only in respect of the ground of appeal concerning the Immigration Rules. Accordingly the only issue before me is whether the judge erred in law by failing to give reasons for allowing the appeal under the Immigration Rules.
10. At the error of law hearing Mr Walker stated that whilst he was not in a position to withdraw the appeal he accepted that the judge had at paragraph 16 made reasoned findings regarding the Immigration Rules and that relevant evidence regarding the respondent was assessed at paragraph 10 of the decision.
Consideration
11. Paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Immigration Rules provides for the grant of leave to remain on the basis of private life where an applicant would face "very significant obstacles" integrating into the country to which he would have to go if required to leave the UK.
12. The judge gave several reasons for finding there would be very significant obstacles to the respondent's integration into Trinidad and Tobago. These are set out, inter alia, in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the decision, where the judge considers the absence of family support or adequate drug treatment for the respondent in Trinidad and Tobago, his reliance on his mother who would most likely not relocate with him and that the respondent would be "alone..., vulnerable and highly at risk" in Trinidad and Tobago.
13. As the judge has given reasons to support his finding that there would be "very significant obstacles" to integration into Trinidad and Tobago, I consider there to be no merit to the Secretary of State's contention that reasons were not given for allowing the appeal under the Immigration Rules.

Decision
A. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error of law and shall stand.
B. The appeal is dismissed.

Signed

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan

Dated: 6 January 2016