Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30397/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10 March 2017
On 13th March 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

MANINDERDEEP SINGH
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Mair of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Background
1. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application for leave to remain on 27 August 2015. His appeal against that was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ransley (“the Judge”) following a hearing on 3 August 2016.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge Parker granted permission to appeal (4 January 2017). He said it is arguable that the Judge materially erred in failing to consider whether it was proportionate to require British children to leave the United Kingdom to retain family life. It was also suggested that the Judge materially erred regarding the length of the relationship by 1 year and that this affected whether it was entered into while his leave was precarious.
3. The Respondent filed a rule 24 notice (5 January 2017) saying, in essence, that the proportionality assessment was adequate. Before me Mr Diwnycz relied on the rule 24 notice but did not seek to defend the Judge’s decision. I did not need to hear from Ms Mair.
Discussion
4. The Appellant was found to have a genuine and subsisting relationship with his 2 British children and 2 British children of his partner. The Judge did not consider the reasonableness of requiring the children to leave the United Kingdom at all (it being argued and referred to in the Judgement [12]), merely referring to the Appellant returning to India and applying to come back here [37]. That is only half of the question and amounts to a material error of law.
5. The second point regarding the length of the relationship arose as the Judge referred to it commencing in July 2014 [35]. That cannot be correct as their child was born on 21 November 2014 and the relationship was from at least February 2014. I am not satisfied however that this was material as even then, and in July 2013 when they claimed they were romantically involved, his leave was precarious as he only had limited leave to remain as explained in Rajendran (s117B – family life) [2016] UKUT 00138 (IAC).
Conclusion on error of law
6. I am therefore satisfied that the Judge made a material error of law as identified above.
7. Mr Diwnycz and Ms Mair both agreed that it was appropriate for me to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal and that no findings should be preserved as a full fact finding exercise needed to be undertaken.

Decision:
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I set aside the decision.
The matter shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal in Bradford as the Appellant lives in Huddersfield, not before Judge Ransley, with a time estimate of 3 hours.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer

10 March 2017