Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA 27454 2013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Determination Promulgated
On 8 April 2014
On 23 April 2014

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE C MAILER

Between

RAJA YASEEN AYUB
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms C H Bexson, Counsel, instructed by Nasim & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr G Saunders, Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal by a citizen of Pakistan born in 1989 against a decision of the respondent to refuse him leave to remain outside the Rules and to order his removal from the United Kingdom.
2. The appellant came to the United Kingdom lawfully in pursuance of his marriage but the marriage was not happy and he did not remain with his wife. It follows that his basis for entering the United Kingdom fell away.
3. It is always possible that a person's removal might contravene his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, either as expressed in the Rules or as expressed by reference to jurisprudence and the terms of the Convention. The First-tier Tribunal Judge on this occasion was entirely alert to the requirements of the Rules and made a decision under the Rules that the appellant should not be allowed to remain on human rights grounds. That part of the decision has not been criticised and permission to appeal was not given on the basis of what was done.
4. Concern was expressed in the reason for giving permission to appeal that the First-tier Tribunal Judge had not asked herself the questions set out in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) ex parte Razgar (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 27. It is an interesting area of academic argument to decide if the questions asked in Razgar are necessarily incorporated in an analysis of the case under the Rules. For my part, I think it is still desirable to refer to Razgar as well as the Rules because it will rarely require much additional work and it will be plain that the appropriate points have been considered.
5. However this is not a case where any of the strong and weighty matters that affect an Article 8 balance could be relied upon. It is not a case, for example, of a man having in a close relationship with minor children or having a life partner who could not be expected to travel with him. We discount the suggestion that he had any serious plans of rekindling his marriage because whatever his intentions are there was nothing from his wife to support them to show that they were in any way well-founded.
6. It is plain from the determination, particularly at paragraph 19 where the First-tier Tribunal Judge referred to the absence of "compelling and exceptional circumstances", that the judge was alert to the possibility that this might have been an exception on human rights grounds under the Rules and found no evidence to support it.
7. We find no material error on the part of the First-tier Tribunal Judge and we dismiss the appellant's appeal.

Signed

Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Dated 17 April 2014