IA/33953/2014

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

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA339532014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 7 June 2016
On 10 June 2016



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

SAJIN MAHARJAN
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Sabic of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Walker Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. The Respondent refused the Appellant's application for leave to remain on 14 August 2014. His appeal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Callow ("the Judge") following a hearing on 12 August 2015.

The grant of permission

2. Upper Tribunal Judge Blum granted permission to appeal (29 April 2016), in essence, stating that it is arguable that the Judge had applied the wrong test within the Article 8 assessment and did not consider relevant evidence.

Discussion

3. Mr Walker, despite the rule 24 notice, accepted the aforementioned and that this amounted to a material error of law. He conceded that depending on the factual matrix that was accepted and assuming all relevant facts were considered, compelling circumstances could exist such as to mean that Article 8 was engaged, and that those facts (if accepted) could meet the reasonableness test required by Article 8. He conceded that the decision could not stand and the mater should be remitted to the reheard de novo by a Judge other than Judge Callow in the First-tier Tribunal. Given these concessions, with which I agreed and given Miss Sabic's helpful submissions and observation that fresh evidence was now available, it is un-necessary for me to recite any of the facts as they will need to be determined afresh.

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 of the First-tier Tribunal.

The matter shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing to be heard by a Judge other than Judge Callow.




Signed:
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
9 June 2016