Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/42057/2014
IA/42060/2014
IA/42061/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester Piccadilly
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 22 February 2016
On 23 March 2016

Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUAL JUDGE BIRRELL
Between
MA
SM
HM
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr J Nicholson counsel instructed by GMIAU
For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. I have considered whether any parties require the protection of an anonymity direction. No anonymity direction was made previously in respect of this Appellant. Having considered all the circumstances and evidence I do not consider it necessary to make an anonymity direction.
2. In order to avoid confusion, the parties are referred to as they were in the First-tier Tribunal.
3. The Appellants are a father and mother born on 3 August 1957 and 25 November 1971 and their daughter born on 3 April 2005.
4. The first Appellant came to the United Kingdom in September 2005 and had leave to remain in the United Kingdom initially as a visitor and then as a worker. In May 2006 the Appellant brought the second and third Appellants to the UK together with two other children who are not the subjects of this appeal as they live independent lives.
5. The first Appellant's leave expired on 30 November 2007 and the first Appellant did nothing to regularise his status until 30 January 2012 when he applied for leave to remain on the basis of family and private life. This application was refused on 18 February 2012. On 17 August 2012 the first Appellant made an application for asylum which was refused. The Appellant appealed that decision and his appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Nicholson on 19 April 2013 in Manchester. The Judge dismissed the appeal on asylum grounds and under Article 8. Permission to appeal that decision was refused on 24 May 2013. The second Appellant made an application for asylum on 16 January 2013 and that was refused and the appeal dismissed on 7 May 2013. The Appellant made a further application for leave to remain on the basis of family and private life on 31 July 2013 and this was also refused on 2 January 2014. This decision was the subject of a Judicial Review and the decision was reconsidered and the reasons for refusal set out in the letter dated 6 October 2014 which were accompanied by removal decisions. That decision was appealed and allowed under Article 8. I found errors of law in that decision in that the Article 8 assessment was inadequate and set it aside for re hearing and that is how the matter came before me.

The Law

6. The burden of proof in this case is upon the Appellants and the standard of proof is upon the balance of probability.
7. As the Appellants are in the United Kingdom, I can take into account evidence that concerns a matter arising after the date of the decision in accordance with Section 85(4) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 .
8. The Appellants appeals are pursuant to Section 82 of the 2002 Act.
9. In relation to claims under Article 8 these are addressed by Appendix FM and paragraph 276ADE of the Rules and the Secretary of State's Guidance. If an applicant does not meet the criteria set out in the Rules then guidance issued by the Secretary of State in the form of instructions provides in effect, that leave to remain outside the rules could be granted in the exercise of residual discretion in 'exceptional circumstances' which are defined in the guidance and must be exercised on the basis of Article 8 considerations, in particular assessing all relevant factors in determining whether a decision is proportionate under Article 8.2.
10. It is now generally accepted that the new IRs do not provide in advance for every nuance in the application of Article 8 in individual cases. At para 30 of Nagre, Sales J said:

"30. ? if, after the process of applying the new rules and finding that the claim for leave to remain under them fails, the relevant official or tribunal judge considers it is clear that the consideration under the Rules has fully addressed any family life or private life issues arising under Article 8, it would be sufficient simply to say that; they would not have to go on, in addition, to consider the case separately from the Rules. If there is no arguable case that there may be good grounds for granting leave to remain outside the Rules by reference to Article 8, there would be no point in introducing full separate consideration of Article 8 again after having reached a decision on application of the Rules."
11. More recently the Court of Appeal in SS Congo [2015] EWCA Civ 387 stated in paragraph 33:
"In our judgment, even though a test of exceptionality does not apply in every case falling within the scope of Appendix FM, it is accurate to say that the general position outside the sorts of special contexts referred to above is that compelling circumstances would need to be identified to support a claim for grant of LTR outside the new Rules in Appendix FM. In our view, that is a formulation which is not as strict as a test of exceptionality or a requirement of "very compelling reasons" (as referred to in MF (Nigeria) in the context of the Rules applicable to foreign criminals), but which gives appropriate weight to the focused consideration of public interest factors as finds expression in the Secretary of State's formulation of the new Rules in Appendix FM. It also reflects the formulation in Nagre at para. [29], which has been tested and has survived scrutiny in this court: see, e.g., Haleemudeen at [44], per Beatson LJ. "
12. Section 117A (2) of the 2002 Act provides that where a Tribunal is required to determine whether a decision made under the Immigration Acts would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 it must, in considering 'the public interest question', have regard in all cases to the considerations listed in section117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended by the Immigration Act 2014). Section 117 (3) provides that the 'public interest question' means the question of whether an interference with a person's right to respect for private and family life is justified under Article 8(2).
13. The S117B considerations are as follows:
"(1) The maintenance of effective immigration controls is in the public interest.
(2) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are able to speak English, because persons who can speak English-
(a) are less of a burden on taxpayers, and
(b) are better able to integrate into society.
(3) It is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are financially independent, because such persons-
(a) are not a burden on taxpayers, and
(b) are better able to integrate into society.
(4) Little weight should be given to-
(a) a private life, or
(b) a relationship formed with a qualifying partner, that is established by a person at a time when the person is in the United Kingdom unlawfully.
(5) Little weight should be given to a private life established by a person at a time when the person's immigration status is precarious.
(6) In the case of a person who is not liable to deportation, the public interest does not require the person's removal where-
(a) the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and
(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom."

14. In relation to the assessment of issues in a case involving children I have taken into account Azimi-Moayed and others (decisions affecting children; onward appeals)[2013] UKUT 197(IAC) (Blake J) where the Tribunal held that
(i) The case law of the Upper Tribunal has identified the following principles to assist in the determination of appeals where children are affected by the appealed decisions: (a) As a starting point it is in the best interests of children to be with both their parents and if both parents are being removed from the United Kingdom then the starting point suggests that so should dependent children who form part of their household unless there are reasons to the contrary;
(ii) It is generally in the interests of children to have both stability and continuity of social and educational provision and the benefit of growing up in the cultural norms of the society to which they belong;
(iii) Lengthy residence in a country other than the state of origin can lead to development of social cultural and educational ties that it would be inappropriate to disrupt, in the absence of compelling reason to the contrary. What amounts to lengthy residence is not clear cut but past and present policies have identified seven years as a relevant period;
(iv) Apart from the terms of published policies and rules, the Tribunal notes that seven years from age four is likely to be more significant to a child that the first seven years of life. Very young children are focussed on their parents rather than their peers and are adaptable;
(v) Short periods of residence, particularly ones without leave or the reasonable expectation of leave to enter or remain, while claims are promptly considered, are unlikely to give rise to private life deserving of respect in the absence of exceptional factors. In any event, protection of the economic well-being of society amply justifies removal in such cases.
Evidence
15. On the file I had the Respondents bundle. I had a copy of the reason for refusal letter. The Appellant put in an appeal and a consolidated bundle of documents numbered1-148 and an additional statement from Wendy Humphrey Taylor.
16. Mr Nicholson also produced copies of two cases: Zermani v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1226 which addresses the relevance of the applicants role in the community in the proportionality exercise and Treebhawon and others (section 117B(6) UKUT 674 (IAC) which confirms that where the provisions of that section are satisfied in relation to a qualifying child the public interest does not require removal of the parent from the UK.
17. There were a number of witnesses who attended court and were ready to give evidence. After some discussion between the parties it was agreed that not all of the witnesses who were present would give evidence although I would, of course, take their written statements into account.
18. I heard evidence from the first Appellant who adopted the contents of his written statement and was then cross examined. He confirmed that he had come to the UK legally to work in the hotel industry. His application to renew his visa was refused in 2007/2008 and had remained in the UK with his family albeit he knew he had no right to remain. He accepted that he worked illegally. He eventually applied in 2012 to regularise his families stay on the basis that it was then a good time to apply.
19. I then heard evidence from Ewan Roberts the Manager of Asylum Link in Merseyside. He adopted the contents of his witness statement at page 44 of the bundle. He confirmed that the third Appellant was well settled into the local community and he was aware she was about to start at High School. She followed the example of her parents and was very helpful at the centre. In answer to Mr Harrison's questions he confirmed that the first Appellant was very helpful at Asylum Link and worked at the reception desk and had done so for 2 years. He had a number of duties and worked 5 days a week. He was the first one in the centre and last one out. He was not paid other than expenses for travel and food. He had not been aware of the Appellant s particular immigration history in view of the numbers at the centre but he nevertheless considered him an honest man someone he relied on as a key volunteer. In answer to a question of mine he confirmed that this case was the only occasion he had given evidence in court on behalf of an Appellant although he had previously provided statements.
20. I also heard evidence from Sister Kathleen Ashurst a founder member of Asylum Link who adopted the statement at page 46 of the bundle. She confirmed that she was fully supportive of the Appellant and his family who showed real care for other asylum seekers. She became aware of the Appellant s lack of status at the last hearing but it did not change her opinion of him. She confirmed that she had never refused to give evidence on because of any Appellant at court and had given evidence 3-4 times.
21. I heard evidence from Peter Tregulgas who adopted his statement at page 58 of the bundle. He is a retired Social Work Manager . He had known the Appellants since they started volunteering at Asylum Link in 2013 as he was also a volunteer. They had become friends. He had not provided a report in his professional capacity in this case as the Appellants legal representatives had obtained an independent report.
22. I heard evidence from Durani Rapozo who adopted his statement at page 54 . He was a complex needs Social Worker. He confirmed that he had facilitated the provision of a short statement by the third child Appellant: it contained her words but he assisted her in writing it. He accepted that he was not independent as he was a supporter of the family. The third Appellant was well settled in Liverpool in his view and had strong connections to the city of Liverpool including a Liverpool accent. She had a strong network of friends and it would be very upsetting for her to leave. In cross examination he accepted that he worked for Assyum Link as a Social Worker and for GMIAU as a supervisor in their social work team. In relation to the suggestion that there was a conflict of interest he stated that this was why an independent report had been obtained he had merely facilitated the taking of a statement from the third Appellant as she is only 10 years old.
23. I heard evidence from Wendy Humphrey Taylor who provided a statement who also works as a volunteer at Asylum Link. She adopted the contents of her witness statement. She expressed the view that the whole family were well integrated into UK society and mixed well with people of differing religions and cultures. In cross examination she confirmed that she had known the Appellants for 3 years and that their paths crossed regularly
Final Submissions
24. On behalf of the Respondent Mr Harrison made the following submissions
(a) He relied on the reasons for refusal letter.
(b) The issue was whether it was reasonable and proportionate for the family to leave the UK and he accepted that the Article 8 claim relied on the case of the child.
(c) He categorised this as a 'Daily Mail' case in that there might be those who suggested that those who contrive to remain long after they should have left and delayed regularising their status until their child had been in the UK over 7 years should not succeed.
25. On behalf of the Appellants Mr Nicholson made the following submissions:
(a) He relied on his skeleton argument.
(b) The issue in this case was whether it was reasonable to expect the third Appellant, the child, to leave the UK. He suggested that section 117B(6) applied and the provision was freestanding. If that applied, then it was not in the public interest to remove the parents.
(c) In respect of whether it was reasonable for the third Appellant to leave the UK he pointed to the evidence of the child herself; there was the evidence of the independent social worker whose professional opinion was that that the child was so well entrenched into the local community that it would unreasonable now for her to be removed: if it was to be done it should have been done sooner; the third Appellant had spent her most formative year in the UK in that she had lived her from when she was 1 until nearly 11.
(d) There had to be strong countervailing arguments to justify removal in these circumstances according to the case of ZH (Tanzania) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 4. The Respondents own policy was that there had to be strong circumstances to justify the removal of a child, in these circumstancesThe only factor he identified was the long period of overstaying by the third Appellants parents but then suggested that the immigration history of the mother in ZH was appalling but her appeal succeeded. By contrast he suggested that the first and second Appellants had made a valuable contribution to the community and I was entitled to attach weight to that .
Findings

26. On balance and taking the evidence as a whole, I have reached the following findings
27. The Appellants are a father, mother and their child the third Appellant who is 10 years old and she will be 11 next month. The first Appellant has been in the UK since September 2005 when he came as a visitor switching to a work permit visa returning to Pakistan to bring back the second Appellant his wife and the third Appellant on 26 May 2006 when she was just over 1 year old. Therefore, the third Appellant has lived in the UK with her parents for 10 years.
28. Mr Nicholson did seek to argue that in fact the third Appellant met the provisions of paragraph 276ADE(iv) of the Immigration Rules but I reminded him that the Respondent had appealed the decision in relation to Article 8 only and there had been no cross appeal in this case. Therefore in this case I am considering only whether the Appellants rights under Article 8 of the Convention are engaged although I accept that it may be a relevant factor in the proportionality exercise whether the third Appellant did meet the Rules and that the test of reasonableness applied both under the Rule relied on by Mr Nicholson and under section 117B(6) of the 2002 act..
29. I have determined the issue on the basis of the questions posed by Lord Bingham in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27
Will the proposed removal be an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicants right to respect for their private (or as the case may be) family life?
30. I am satisfied that the Appellants enjoy both a family life in the United Kingdom and a private life.
If so, will such interference have consequences of such gravity as potentially to engage the operation of Article 8?
31. I am satisfied that removal would have consequences of such gravity as potentially to engage the operation of Article 8.
If so, is such interference in accordance with the law?
32. I am satisfied that there is in place the legislative framework for the decision giving rise to the interference with Article 8 rights which is precise and accessible enough for the Appellants to regulate their conduct by reference to it.
If so, is such interference necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others?
33. The interference does have legitimate aims since it is in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 8 (2) necessary in pursuit of the economic well being of the country through the maintenance of the requirements of a policy of immigration control. The state has the right to control the entry of non nationals into its territory and Article 8 does not mean that an individual can choose where she wishes to enjoy their private and family life.
If so, is such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved?
34. In making the assessment I have also taken into account ZH (Tanzania) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 4 where Lady Hale noted Article 3(1) of the UNCRC which states that "in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by ? courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
35. Article 3 is now reflected in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 which provides that, in relation, among other things, to immigration, asylum or nationality, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that those functions "are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom". Lady Hale stated that "any decision which is taken without having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of any children involved will not be "in accordance with the law" for the purpose of article 8(2)". Although she noted that national authorities were expected to treat the best interests of a child as "a primary consideration", she added "Of course, despite the looseness with which these terms are sometimes used, "a primary consideration" is not the same as "the primary consideration", still less as "the paramount consideration".
36. I am satisfied that the issue against which I must consider the best interests of the third Appellant is whether the provisions of s 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 apply. I accept that given that the third Appellant meets the definition of 'qualifying child' as set out in the Rules in that she has been in the UK for more than 7 years the public interest as reflected by paragraph 117B(6) (1)-(3) does not require the parent's removal if "it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom." I am satisfied that a determination of what is in the reasonable in these circumstances also incorporates what is in the best interests of the child.
37. The starting point for my assessment of whether it would be reasonable for the third Appellant to return with her parents (because they have no right to remain) to their country of origin is that she is nearly 11 years old and has lived in the UK for 10 years, and those years now include the 7 years after age 4 identified as being of more significance in caselaw. I note and accept what Mr Nicholson says in his skeleton argument that for this child the word 'return' can only be used in a strict sense in that while her parents lived there for most of their adult lives she would be returning to a country where she lived only for a year as an infant. Lady Hale also said "Acknowledging that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in these cases immediately raises the question of how these are to be discovered. An important part of this is discovering the child's own views". I have in this case not heard oral evidence from the third Appellant but I have a short statement provided with the help of Mr Repozo. I am not surprised to read that she does not want to live in Pakistan given that it is a country with which she is unfamiliar as she apparently feels English and this is confirmed in the report of Ms Brown addressed in more detail below: she has never been there having spent the vast majority of her life in the UK and she is fearful of the violence she has seen on the television and claims not to speak the language.
38. I accept that her first language is now English as she spends more time speaking it on a daily basis than she speaks any other language. Indeed, such is her competence in English that I note she represented her primary school in an inter school public speaking competition. However I am unable to accept her claim not to speak Urdu and treat it as an unsurprising, if regrettable, exaggeration from a ten year old child on an important issue: no evidence was provided to me that her mother speaks English and while I may be prepared to accept that she speaks to her father in English and may well be far more fluent and comfortable speaking English, and may indeed have a Liverpool accent which may impact of her spoken Urdu, I cannot accept that she does not speak to her mother and if she does, that must involve her speaking and understanding Urdu. I also note that in the previous asylum decision made by First-tier Immigration Judge Nicholson in 2013 (paragraph 82) he made a positive finding to this effect based on school reports referring to English as her 'first' language and the fact that she spoke little English when she started nursery.
39. There is no doubt that she enjoys school and has friends there and in the local area where she lives and therefore both through school and these wider friendships she is well integrated into the community. The statement I note does not reflect the fact that she has already while in the UK moved schools from one in Burnley to Liverpool and therefore is sufficiently robust to cope with such a significant change to her life. There is no positive evidence of close family ties Pakistan although the report of Ms Brown refers to family there but given I accept that the third Appellant's Urdu is limited her meaningful interaction with them must also be limited.
40. I also have a report from an independent social worker Christine Brown dated 23 February 2015 and in so far as it relates to third Appellant it is based in an hour long meeting with her. She describes the third Appellant as a confident, articulate child in westernised clothing with a Liverpool accent whose musical tastes, book choices and choice of pop star idols is entirely westernised. She has already demonstrated an ability to cope with change and challenge as the family moved from Burney to Liverpool taking her from a school where she felt well settled and had been for a number of years to a Catholic School where she is the only Muslim child although she stated that the change was from one familiar English environment to another English environment rather than to an alien environment like Pakistan. She hopes to move onto senior school with her school friends and friends that that she has met through her parent's friends. She confirmed to Ms Brown that she was frightened of returning to Pakistan as she had no memories of it and had only limited contact with her maternal grandmother there and the fact that she would return with her parents would be of little comfort.
41. I note that Ms Brown speculates about the negative impact that 'arrest and detention' would have on the third Appellant but she does not make clear on what basis that risk would arise nor does she make it clear whether this is a matter that concerns her or whether the third Appellant believes this is a fate that awaits her. I am satisfied that those fears are unfounded given the decision of First-tier Judge Nicholson who rejected the mother's asylum appeal and the facts that underpinned.
42. The conclusion of the report provides a very helpful summary and states that :
"A return to Pakistan at this stage in her life and her development will place an expectation on H to make an adjustment from all that is now familiar , predictable and safe to her to that which is unfamiliar and disorientating and that will have the potential to impact adversely and harshly on H, should she struggle to come to terms with what has occurred , which I do not doubt will be the case, because there is no easy transition from one country to another when this is against a child or a young person's wishes, regardless of where that country may be. H is now too far entrenched and attached in her life to make such a transition. If this was to have taken place, it should have been much sooner, when H did not have the awareness that she does now with all the ramifications that this will have for her."
43. I am satisfied therefore that in the fact specific circumstances of this case in March 2016 taking into account the professional opinion of Ms Brown and the views of the third Appellant herself, given the length of time that the third Appellant has lived in the UK and how well integrated she is not only into UK society and culture but quite specifically northern culture and society, the inevitable limitations of her Urdu, her own apparent lack of close family ties to Pakistan and her genuine fears about returning there it is, on balance, in her best interests to remain in the UK. While I accept that the requirement to move schools cannot be elevated to an unreasonable and harsh requirement I am satisfied that for this Appellant as part of the overall assessment it must be considered against the background facts that it would not be her choice or indeed the choice of her parents and she would not be changing schools from one familiar cultural and social environment to another. I agree with Ms Brown that if this decision had taken place much sooner a removal, even in the case of the third Appellant, would not have been unreasonable but that time has passed.
44. Where the best interests of the child clearly favour a certain course, that course should be followed unless countervailing reasons of considerable force displace them and this is not only the position in law but is confirmed by Home Office Policy that refers to 'strong reasons' where the child has been in the UK for more than 7 years. What are the strong countervailing factors that might militate against a decision in favour of all of the Appellants remaining in the UK together given that I accept that it would be in the best interests of the third Appellant to remain with her parents?
45. In a case such as this an obvious countervailing feature for the first two Appellants relates to the flouting of the system of immigration control in that all parties are not UK citizens and therefore not entitled to all the benefits in terms of health and education that this brings. I may also have taken into account the poor immigration history of the parents who have been overstayers since their leave expired in 2007 and who thereafter made no attempt to regularise their status supporting themselves by working illegally. However given that the third Appellant should not suffer for the behaviour of her parents and my finding that section 117B(6) applies, those factors identified in section 117B (1)-(3) do not apply and therefore these are not factors that I am permitted to take into account as countervailing features. I would in fact have accepted that while the Appellants may only have achieved a measure of self sufficiency by working illegally that this situation would in my judgement be unlikely to continue. Both. the first and second Appellant are well educated and had good jobs in Pakistan. Both have demonstrated albeit through their voluntary assistance in Asylum Link a strong work ethic. The first Appellant worked until his visa expired and in my view would be likely to try hard to find paid employment when he was permitted to do so and would be self sufficient. I note that Mr Harrison was unable to articulate for me any other strong countervailing feature that might outweigh the best interests of the child that I was entitled to take into account.
46. The only other factors that remain for me to consider for the sake of completeness under section 117B that assists the Appellants cases are subsections (4) and (5). I must give little weight to the private lived established while the Appellants status was precarious which was in essence between 2005-2007, and when it was unlawful which was between 2007-2012. I acknowledge that the adult Appellants have marshalled an impressive array of witnesses who attest to the valuable contribution that they have made to the work of Asylum Link since 2013 .While I note that this work appears to have coincided with their application to regularise their status it is nevertheless noted that once begun they have continued to devote most of their days to working and assisting at Asylum Link and their contribution has been acknowledged and praised by all of those who attended and gave evidence on their behalf. It is one thing to make a statement but not attend court but I note that a number of these witnesses have attended court and been willing to provide oral evidence on each occasion that this has been required. The witnesses were all credible and I accept without hesitation their evidence which appeared constant even when they were aware that the Appellants were overstayers. The evidence reflects some engagement and integration into the community that I take into account although I nevertheless note that the evidence largely demonstrates an engagement with the migrant community that is reflected by those seeking the services of Asylum Link but does not reflect friendships and engagement with the wider community.
47. Looking at the evidence in this case in the round therefore I am satisfied that while it is in the best interests of the third Appellant to continue to be brought up by her parents who have no right to remain in the UK it is also in her best interests for the reasons I have set out above to remain in the UK. I am satisfied that there are no countervailing features of any force that I am entitled to take into account that outweigh the third Appellants best interests and therefore I am satisfied that the removal of the Appellants in this case would be disproportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved.
Conclusion
48. On the facts as established in this appeal, there are substantial grounds for believing that the Appellants removal would result in treatment in breach of ECHR.
DECISION
49. I allow the appeal under Article 8 of the ECHR.
50. Under Rule 14(1) the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) rules 2008 9as amended) the Appellant can be granted anonymity throughout these proceedings, unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise. An order for anonymity was made in the First-tier and shall continue.

Signed Date 9.3.2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Birrell