OA/04777/2015

  • 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/04777/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 2 February 2017
On 2 February 2017



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER


Between

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - PRETORIA
Appellant
and

BDM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs Petterson a Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Nicholson of Counsel


DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. For the purpose of continuity with the determination in the First-tier Tribunal I will hereinafter refer to the Entry Clearance Officer as the Respondent and BDM as the Appellant.

2. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify BDM or any of her family members. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to contempt of court proceedings. I do so in order to preserve the anonymity of BDM who is a child.

3. The Respondent refused BDM's application for leave to enter as the child of a person present and settled here on 7 January 2015. Her appeal against this was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Hindson ("the Judge") following a hearing on 6 June 2016.

4. In summary the Judge found that BDM had established that her mother here had sole responsibility for her based on her oral evidence which he believed.

The grant of permission

5. Judge Andrew granted permission to appeal (28 November 2016) on the ground that it is arguable that the Judge erred given the absence of supporting documentation.

Respondent's position

6. Mrs Petterson agreed that the application before me was based on TK (Burundi) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 40, but in reality this was simply a disagreement with the Judge's decision as the Judge does not require documentary evidence and made findings open to him.

Discussion

7. Given the concession made by Mrs Petterson, I am not satisfied that a material error of law occurred as the Judge was not required to have documentary evidence and made findings open to him on the evidence he did have.

Decision:

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I do not set aside the decision.



Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
2 February 2017