IA/41788/2014 & IA/42161/2014

  • 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 Numbers: IA/41788/2014
IA/42161/2014


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 12 August 2016
On 19 August 2016



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHANA


Between

MUHAMMAD JAVID
TAHIR AZIZ
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellants
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr D Balroof, Universal Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs A Vijialade, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants are citizens of Pakistan born on 1 January 1984 and 25 December 1985. They made a combined application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrants under the points-based system and for biometric residence permits. The applications were refused by the respondent on 7 October 2014 as she was not satisfied that the appellants could be awarded a minimum of 75 points under paragraph 245DD(b) and Appendix A of the Immigration Rules as they had failed to submit evidence specified in paragraph 41-SD(e) of Appendix A of the Rules.
2. Initially Judge Shaffer refused permission to appeal on 14 December 2015 but it was subsequently granted by Judge Ockelton, Vice President of the Upper Tribunal, stating that permission is granted in light of the decision of the High Court in this case. It was accepted that there had been an error of law and the matter was submitted back to the Upper Tribunal.
3. At the hearing it was agreed between the parties that the matter be sent back to the Secretary of State for the application to be considered again with all the documents that the appellants claimed that they sent to the respondent before the date of decision.
4. It is clear from the decision and it is not disputed that the documents were sent by the appellant after the application and before the date of decision. The Secretary of State's position is that the are not sure what documents have been sent and therefore the only way to resolve the issue is for the Secretary of State to reconsider all the document in a fresh decsion.
Notice of Decision
5. I allow the appeal as not being in accordance with the law and remit it to the Secretary of State awaiting their lawful decision.
No anonymity direction is made.
No fee award is made.


Signed Mrs S Chana Date 18 August 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chana