Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: OA/05104/2015
OA/05107/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 13th March, 2017 and
Signed and sent to
Promulgation on 15th March 2017.
On 16th March, 2017

Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley

Between

Mrs Naveen Ikhlaq
Mr Shahmir Alam
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION Not made)
Appellants
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr M Iqbal, Counsel, instructed by Solicitors Inn
For the Respondent: Mr N Bramble, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants are a mother and son who were born, respectively, on 19th December, 1977 and 15th September, 2004. They are both citizens of Pakistan. The sponsor, who is Mr Maqsood Alam, a British national born on 8th January, 1969, is the husband of the first-named appellant and father of the second-named appellant.
2. The appellants applied for entry clearance as the spouse of the sponsor and as the son of the sponsor but their applications for entry clearance were refused by the Entry Clearance Officer Islamabad on 13th February, 2015. In the Notice of Refusal the Entry Clearance Officer states that he was not satisfied that the sponsor was present or settled in the United Kingdom, or being admitted for settlement on the same occasion and was aware that the sponsor’s British nationality as he put it “has been revoked as it was obtained by deception”.
3. The appellants appealed against the refusal of the Entry Clearance Officer to the First-tier Tribunal and their appeal was heard by First-tier Judge Sullivan without an oral hearing on 27th July, 2016. She recorded in her determination that on 3rd February, 2015 the sponsor was notified of a decision to deprive him of British citizenship. She refused the appeals both under the Immigration Rules and on the basis of the appellants’ Article 8 rights. The appellants were subsequently granted leave to appeal.
4. At the hearing before me today Mr Bramble, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer appearing on behalf of the respondent, advised me that on 3rd February the Secretary of State gave notice of her intention to make an order under Section 40 of the Nationality Act 1971 to the sponsor. He told me that the judge had erred in law, because at the date of the Entry Clearance Officer’s decision, the sponsor’s British nationality had not been cancelled. In fact, he told me, the sponsor had appealed and was successful in his appeal and has remained a British citizen. He accepted that there was an error of law in the determination, such that I did not need to hear from Mr Iqbal.
5. Mr Bramble invited me to set aside Judge Sullivan’s determination and remake the decision myself in allowing it. I am satisfied that the making of the decision by Judge Sullivan did involve the making of a material error of law. I set aside the decision of Judge Sullivan. I remake the decision myself. The appeals are allowed.

Notice of Decision
The appeals are allowed under the immigration rules.
No anonymity direction is made.

Richard Chalkley
A Judge of the Upper Tribunal.

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD
As I have allowed the appeal and because a fee has been paid or is payable, I have considered making a fee award and have decided to make a fee award of any fee which has been paid or may be payable (adjusted where full award not justified) for the following reason. The decision of the Entry Clearance Officer was wrong in law.

Richard Chalkley
A Judge of the Upper Tribunal.