IA/26755/2014

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision


IAC-AH-VP-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/26755/2014


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6th February 2017
Signed and sent to
Promulgation on 10th February 2017
On 15th March 2017



Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley


Between

kenneth ndive monono
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: The appellant in person
For the Respondent: Mr Mills a Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Cameroon, born on 1st April, 1981. He made application to the Secretary of State for a residence card on the basis that he was in a durable relationship with an EEA national, Jacqueline Enoru, a Belgian citizen (“the sponsor”). The respondent did not accept that he was in a durable relationship with the sponsor and refused his application on 18th June 2014.
2. The appellant appealed and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Wyman without a hearing, having reviewed the evidence before her the judge found that she was satisfied that the appellant had been living with the sponsor at the same address for a period of at least two years and that the parties were therefore in a “durable relationship”. The judge went on to allow the appeal.
3. The Secretary of State sought and obtained leave to appeal on the basis that the judge should not have allowed the appeal outright, because it was not open to exercise the discretion of the Secretary of State under Regulation 17(4) of the 2016 Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
4. At the hearing before me Mr Mills relied on the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Sala (EFMs: right of appeal) [2016] UKUT 00411 (IAC), where the Vice President of the appeal concluded that the decision by the Secretary of State in the exercise of her discretion not to issue an extended family member with a residence card under Regulation 17(4), is not a decision under the EEA Regulations 2006 which concerns … a person’s entitlement to be issued with … a residence card and is not, therefore, appealable to the First-tier Tribunal.
5. The appellant has no right of appeal. The First-tier Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and he had erred in law in doing so. I set aside its decision to allow the appeal and substitute a decision that there was no valid appeal before the First-tier Tribunal.
No anonymity direction is made.


Richard Chalkley

A Judge of the Upper Tribunal.