IA/30122/2014

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

The decision


IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30122/2014


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24th February 2016
14th March 2016




Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant

and

Miss Ernestina Ruth Tuffour
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms S Sreeraman, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr D Adama-Adams, Counsel instructed by Makanda Bart & Co


DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State to the Upper Tribunal in relation to a Decision of Judge Sweet of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 18th August 2015.
2. The judge was dealing with the Appellant and her family members as dependants being her husband and three children. The three children were born in 2005, 2010 and 2013. They had applied under Appendix FM to remain in the United Kingdom. The judge correctly identified that the only member of the family who could benefit under the Rules at all was the child [P], that child being in the United Kingdom throughout her life, so from 2005.
3. The judge then on that basis considered in extremely brief findings, indeed in relation to [P] it is three lines, that it would not be reasonable to expect her to leave the UK where she had spent all her life, nor would it be reasonable for the rest of her family including the Appellant to leave the UK. That finding is completely unreasoned, particularly when you take into account the fact that [P] is one member of a family of five the other four of whom had no leave to be in the UK.
4. I therefore have no difficulty in finding in favour of the Secretary of State's grounds that the First-tier Judge made an error of law. The error of law goes to the heart of the Decision because the only reason the appeal would succeed was because of the Decision in relation to the child [P] and so it is to be set aside in its entirety.
5. Mr Adams on behalf of the original Appellant does not seek to argue that the judgment can be saved. It is fair to say that the Appellant did not have a proper hearing or a reasoned Decision before the First-tier and therefore as it has to be completely reheard, and that is accepted by both Mr Adams and Ms Sreeraman, the appropriate forum for rehearing is the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision

I therefore allow the Secretary of State's appeal to the Upper Tribunal, set aside the Decision of Judge Sweet and remit it to the First-tier for a full rehearing on all issues. The appeal should be heard at Taylor House as that is the appropriate venue for where the Appellant resides.

No anonymity direction was requested and I do not make one.






Signed Date 4th March 2016


Upper Tribunal Judge Martin