Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: ia/37704/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 28th July, 2016
Signed and sent for
Promulgation 4th
August, 2016
On 10th August, 2016

Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley

Between

A E U
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Jibowu of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr McVitie a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant was born on [ ] 1977 and is a national of Nigeria. He appealed against the decision of the respondent taken on 12th September, 2014 to direct his removal from the United Kingdom. His appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Meah at Taylor House on 15th October, 2015 and in a determination promulgated on 26th October, 2015 he dismissed his appeal under the Immigration Rules and dismissed his appeal under Article 8.

2. The appellant had sought to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of his relationship with a Ugandan national who enjoys refugee status in the United Kingdom and who together have a child who has leave to remain in line with the child's mother. The appellant and his partner have two children together.

3. Permission was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the judge had erred by taking a distorted approach to Article 8, as set out in paragraph 16 of the determination and had failed to set out in a sufficiently rigorous manner the criteria pursuant to Section 117. At paragraph 16, the judge said that she found that there was nothing which was significant enough to make her depart from the Immigration Rules, which she found to be a complete code.

4. Unfortunately the determination is confused. The judge appears to have ignored the fact that it should be possible for anyone reading a determination to know all the reasons why the judge has reached the decision that he or she has reached. It is necessary to set out at the very least a summary of the evidence heard, otherwise it is simply impossible to know whether the judge has made adequate findings and given adequate reasons for those findings. It should not be necessary to look at the Record of Proceedings, (which the parties do not have access to in any event, unless they appeal) because the determination should be a complete record in itself. Only then can both parties know why they have won or lost the appeal.

5. An example of the difficulty which occurs when a determination does not set out the evidence is highlighted by paragraph 22. The judge noted that the couple moved in to live together properly in December 2015, when they started full-time cohabitation and noted that prior to this the couple spent time with each other at their respective residences, although, "they were living together" as both had their own accommodation, which she took to be an indication that they were living apart during these times. With very great respect to her, the fact that a couple do not live full-time together does not mean that they are not in a genuine relationship. There are other examples of the difficulty caused by the failure of the judge to set out at least a summary of the evidence she heard, but it is not necessary for me to refer to them.

6. With the agreement of Counsel and the Presenting Officer I have concluded that the determination must be set aside and the appellant's appeal be reheard afresh by a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Meah. I respectfully suggest that two hours be allowed for the hearing.

Notice of Decision

The determination is set aside and the appeal remitted to the First Tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a judge other than First Tier Tribunal Judge Meah.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

The First Tier Tribunal directed that the appellant is granted anonymity. I have not been asked to vary or alter that direction. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Richard Chalkley
Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

No fee is paid or payable and therefore there can be no fee award.

Richard Chalkley
Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley