Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: ia/28167/2014
ia/28303/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Upper Tribunal IAC, Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 22 February 2016
On 7 April 2016
Prepared 22 February 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVEY

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant
And

miss Joy Atinuke Ebelugwu (first respondent)
miss Glory Ebelugwu (second RESPONDENT)
(anonymity order NOT made)

Respondents

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr D Mills, Senior Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr B Singh, Counsel instructed by Direct Access

DECISION AND REASONS

1. In this decision the Appellant is referred to as the Secretary of State and the Respondents are referred to as the Claimants.

2. The Claimants, nationals of Nigeria, dates of birth 8 September 1991 and 24 April 1993, appealed against the Secretary of State's decisions to refuse to vary leave to remain and to make removal directions.

3. The Claimants' appeals came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Shanahan (the judge) who, on 30 October 2014, promulgated decisions in which he allowed the appeals with reference to paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules (the rules) and also under Article 8 of the ECHR.

4. Permission to appeal the decisions was given on 12 December 2014. On 18 December 2015 I found that the judge had erred in law in considering both the claims as made out under Article 8 ECHR and under paragraph 276ADE of the rules. Accordingly I issued directions for the case to be remade in the Upper Tribunal by me.

5. At the hearing on 22 February 2016 Mr Mills, having spoken with Mr Singh accepted that previous errors by an Entry Clearance Officer had effectively and wrongly denied the Claimants, as children of a mother present and settled in the United Kingdom, from being granted indefinite leave to enter. Such error had occurred about ten years ago and it was plain that there had been a denial of rights which should have been recognised in respect of the first and second Claimants.

5. Accordingly Mr Mills sought permission to withdraw the Secretary of States' appeal against the decision of the judge's decision because, although he did not accept that the judge's reasoning was sustainable, the underlying unfairness and injustice that had been caused to the Claimants meant that the matter would have to be remade and them granted leave to remain.

6. In these circumstances I agree to the Secretary of State's appeal being withdrawn, the judge's decision of 30 October 2014 stands but that for other reasons the Claimants will be entitled to remain in the United Kingdom, which decisions would now be issued by the Secretary of State.

Signed Date 14 March 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey