Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: ia/38778/2013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 1 December 2016
On 25th January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN

Between

jaspal singh
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr D Coleman instructed by Direct Access
For the Respondent: Mr S Whitell, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is the appeal of Mr Singh against the decision of Judge Fletcher-Hill promulgated on 4 April 2016 in which she dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State's decision refusing his claim for leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules based on length of residence and his human rights claim. Without going into matters in detail it is clear that evidence was given by five witnesses who were all found to be truthful in their evidence concerning the amount of time they had known him and in what circumstances since his claimed arrival in 1998. As I say the judger found all the witnesses to be truthful in their evidence.

2. The appeal was dismissed with regard to long residence and the judge did not accept that the appellant had shown at least fourteen years' continuous residence in the United Kingdom. We know now that that was the wrong test to apply since it is clear from the case law that in a case such as this, although the application was made before the Rules changed, the decision was not made during the relatively brief transitional period after 12 July 2012 which required decisions to be made under the old Rules. The decision in this case was made well after that period had elapsed so he had to show twenty years' residence. So nothing hangs on that in the sense that at least as of now Mr Singh cannot show twenty years' residence and of course was not able to show that before the judge but the issue before me essentially is that of Article 8 and in particular paragraph 276ADE and I think it is common ground that the judge, although clearly aware of the fact that that was given consideration in the refusal letter, she refers to that at paragraph 34 did not in fact go on to apply that provision to the evidence in this case. Mr Whitwell says there is some reference to evidence at paragraph 42, and findings there, but there are issues in relation to that, not least that they do not address the evidence in the context of a consideration of paragraph 276ADE.

3. So it seems to me and I think this is not really controversial between the representatives that the matter will have to be remitted for a re-hearing but preserving the credibility findings, the acceptance of the truthfulness of the evidence of the five witnesses and it will go back to be heard by a First-tier Judge at Taylor House who I understand is Mr Coleman's request in this case.

Notice of Decision

4. The appeal is allowed to that extent.

Signed Date 25/01/2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen