Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/35730/2014
IA/35734/2014
IA/35737/2014
IA/35740/2014
IA/35741/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision issued
On 26 September 2016
On 27th September 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O'CONNOR

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

MUHAMMAD [K]
RABIA [K]
[Z A]
[M A1]
[M A2]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Respondents

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Respondents are citizens of Pakistan. Each appealed to the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") against decisions of the SSHD, made on 20 August 2014, refusing them leave to remain. Those appeals were allowed by First-tier Tribunal judge O'Brien in a decision of 21 May 2015. The SSHD appealed to the Upper Tribunal and in a decision of 13 January 2016 Judge Latter set aside the FtT's decision. The re-making of the decision under appeal was adjourned, to be undertaken by the Upper Tribunal.
2. By way of a letter of 23 September 2016 the SSHD indicates that the 3rd respondent has now been granted British citizenship. The 3rd respondent's appeal must therefore be treated as abandoned.
3. As a consequence of the aforementioned circumstances the SSHD also indicates that she wishes to withdraw the decisions under appeal in relation to the remaining four respondents, with a view to granting each of them a period of leave. The respondents' legal representatives have no objection to this course.
4. The Secretary of State does not require the permission of the Upper Tribunal to withdraw a decision she has made, even if such decision is the subject of the appeal before the Tribunal. The withdrawal of the decision underlying the appeal does not, however, extinguish the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal under section 12(2)(b)(ii) of the 2007 Act to re-make the decision in the appeal brought under the 2002 Act: See SM (Withdrawal of appeal decision effect) Pakistan [2014] UKUT 64 (IAC).
5. Having had regard, inter alia, to the matters identified in paragraph 72 of SM, and in particular observing that (i) the respondents' circumstances have significantly changed since the last time the Secretary of State gave substantive consideration to their cases (ii) that the SSHD should, ordinarily, be the primary decision maker in the immigration field and (iii) there are no matters of general legal or procedural guidance to be addressed in this appeal I conclude, having also considered the overriding objective in the 2008 Rules, that consent should be given the Secretary of State to withdraw her case.
6. Following the reasoning of the Tribunal in SM, I must formally dispose of this appeal. The normal course in such circumstances would be to dismiss the appeal, unless there are matters which points towards not doing so (SM - paragraph 72). In all the circumstances of this case, and having taken into account the reasons provided by the respondent for withdrawing her decisions i.e. to reconsider the respondents' cases with a view to granting leave, I conclude that it is appropriate to formally allow the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents' appeals. I make clear however that this is no reflection on the merits of the case of either party and is no more than a formality to bring these proceedings to an end.

Decision
The determination of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside for the reasons given by UTJ Latter
The 3rd respondent's appeal is treated as abandoned.
The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents' appeals are formally allowed, such conclusion having been reached without the Upper Tribunal having given substantive consideration to the merits of the appeal.

Signed:

Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor
26 September 2016