Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30135/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 22nd September 2016
On 27th September 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

Mr Katio Claudmiro Mendonca Pereira Sanca
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No Attendance
For the Respondent: Mr T Wilding, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the appeal brought by Mr Katio Claudmiro Mendonca Pereira Sanca against the decision of Judge Lamb made following a hearing at Richmond on 22nd February 2016.
2. The appellant is a Portuguese national. On 10th July 2014 he was served with notice, by reference to Regulations 20A and 21B(2), that he was considered to be a person in respect of whom removal directions may be given because he had engaged in conduct which appeared to be an attempt to enter into or assist another to enter into a marriage of convenience fraudulently, or assisting another to obtain a right to reside, because he had attempted to enter into a marriage with Tolulope Olubukola Ajayi.
3. The issue before the judge was therefore whether the appellant had in fact engaged in such conduct.
4. The judge assessed the evidence and then wrote as follows:
"I consider the answers given by the appellant and by Ms Ajayi in the interviews with the Immigration Officers, which I have set out, to be reliable and accurate evidence of what they said at the time. I further find those answers to be compelling evidence that on 10th July 2014 they were about to enter into a sham marriage. Each of the factual matters in respect of which I have set out the answers is a matter which anyone in a genuine and loving relationship can reasonably be expected to recall. Instead, their answers were, in the main, in stark conflict."
He then gave various examples of the inconsistencies. He reminded himself that the burden of proof lay with the respondent and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities. He concluded that the appellant's appeal should be dismissed.
5. The appellant's representatives, Londoninium Solicitors, put in various grounds of challenge which consist of generalised allegations of unfairness and unreasonableness, and stating that there was evidence that they were in a genuine relationship.
6. Permission to appeal was subsequently granted by Judge Simpson, who said that the decision was silent as to any relevant case law. There was no mention of the Regulations and nothing in the decision to confirm or contradict the appellant's claim to have permanent residence in the UK.
7. Before the hearing the Tribunal received a letter from the appellant stating that he was not going to attend. He said that he would like to make it clear that he did not make any application to the Upper Tribunal and as far as he knows it was made by his solicitors. The solicitors also wrote saying that they were without instructions.
8. Mr Wilding, who represented the respondent, asked that the judge's decision should stand.
9. I conclude, first, that there is in fact no challenge to the judge's decision because it is clear from the appellant himself that the grounds were submitted to the Tribunal without instruction. Second, in any event, the challenge is without any merit. The judge was plainly entitled to come to the conclusions that he did for the reasons which he gave. The observation in the grant of permission to permanent residence is a complete red herring, because there is no reference as to whether or not the appellant had permanent residence in the grounds but even if he did, there is nothing in Regulation 21B which would prevent his removal.
10. For the above reasons the judge's decision will stand.
Notice of Decision

The appeal is dismissed.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 26 September 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor