Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal nos: IA 27502, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-12

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

At
Decision signed: 29.05.2013
on 29.05.2013
sent out: 03.06.2013

Before:
Upper Tribunal Judge
John FREEMAN

Between:
Omolara Rasheedat YAHAYA & 5 others
appellants
and

respondent
Representation:
For the appellant: John Walsh (counsel instructed by Graceland)
For the respondent: Miss Helen Horsley

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
This is an appeal, by the , against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Nicholas Paul), sitting at Taylor House on 1 February, to long residence appeals by citizens of Nigeria, the (main) appellant, born 23 December 1973, her husband, born 21 June 1966, and three children, all under 18. It is now accepted by the Home Office that they have all (apart from Wadood, born here in 2005) been in this country since 2003, though none at any time with more than visit leave.
2. The judge treated it as conceded on behalf of the appellants that they could not succeed on the basis of the article 8 provisions in the Immigration Rules (appendix FM and paragraph 276 ADE) as they stood at the date of the decision to refuse them indefinite leave to remain, on 22 October 2012; however it is now agreed that this was a misapprehension on his part. It follows that the decision will need to be re-made on that basis.
3. It is also agreed that, before an appeal decision on the merits of this family’s case as a whole can be properly made, the Home Office will need to reach a decision of their own on the case of the youngest child Hameedat, born here 1 April 2010. Since any appeal against that would go in the first place to the First-tier Tribunal, it is further agreed that that would be the convenient forum for a re-hearing of the present appeals, with which such an appeal may be consolidated.
4. The questions for decision at the re-hearing will be as follows:
(a) Does either of the parents succeed under EX1 of appendix FM?
(b) Does any of the children succeed under paragraph 276 ADE?
(c) In the light of the decisions made on the family as a whole, would removal of any family member who does not succeed under the Immigration Rules be disproportionate to the legitimate purpose of ?
5. In dealing with questions (a) and (b), it is agreed that the judge should have regard to the article 8 provisions in the Immigration Rules as they stood at the date of the decision under appeal; but in dealing, if necessary, with question (c) with those provisions as they now stand.
6. The Home Office should reach a decision as soon as possible about Hameedat: if, as expected, that is negative, then the appellants’ solicitors must include with their notice of appeal
(a) a copy of this decision; and
(b) a request for Hameedat’s appeal to be consolidated for hearing with these at Taylor House.
Appeals : fresh hearing before First-tier Tribunal

(a judge of the Upper Tribunal)