OA/03644/2015

  • 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 Number: OA/03644/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 20th October, 2016
On 28th October, 2016



Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley


Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

Mrs Nasreen Akhtar
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Harrison, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Ms Olson, Counsel, instructed by Mohammed & Co Solicitors


DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The appellant in this appeal is the Secretary of State, to whom I shall refer as, "the claimant". The respondent is a citizen of Pakistan born on 15th December, 1975. The respondent applied for leave to enter the United Kingdom as the parent of a child under paragraph EC-P.1.1 of Appendix FM of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended). The Entry Clearance Officer Islamabad refused entry clearance on 29th January, 2015.

2. The respondent's appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Thorne, who in a determination promulgated on 29th February, 2016, indicated that maintenance was to be provided by the respondent's niece. He had been addressed by the Presenting Officer, who had suggested that support from the niece amounted to third party support and was not permissible. He found, in paragraph 43 of his determination, that offers of financial support from a sponsor were not impermissible third party support. The claimant sought to challenge the judge's determination.

3. Addressing me today, Ms Olson suggested that third party support from the sponsor was not impermissible. In any event, she suggested, the appeal ought to be allowed under Article 8. Mr Harrison urged me to find that third party support was impermissible. The sponsor was not a spouse or partner, but a third party. Counsel agreed that the respondent could not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules.

4. With his customary fairness Mr Harrison, indicated that he could not argue against the respondent's Article 8 appeal being allowed. I am satisfied that he was correct in doing so. In the circumstances, the respondent's appeal against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer is granted. The First Tier Judge did err in law. I set his decision aside and remake it. The respondent's immigration appeal is dismissed. The respondent's human rights appeal is allowed under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Notice of Decision

The respondent's appeal is dismissed on immigration grounds. The appeal is allowed on human rights grounds

No anonymity direction is made.

I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award.

Richard Chalkley
Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley