Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/07126/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 12 December 2016
On 25 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

Entry Clearance Officer - islamabad
Appellant
and

Abdul Basit
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs R Pettersen, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr Ghafoor, Girlington Advice & Training Centre

DECISION AND REASONS
1. I shall refer to the appellant as the respondent and to the respondent as the appellant (as they appeared respectively before the First-tier Tribunal). The appellant, Abdul Basit, was born on 15 August 2005 and is a male citizen of Pakistan. He appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 16 March 2015 to refuse him entry clearance as a dependent child under paragraph 297 of HC 395 (as amended). The First-tier Tribunal (Judge Myers) in a decision promulgated on 20 June 2016, allowed the appeal under the Immigration Rules. The Entry Clearance Officer now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. This appeal turned on the question of sole responsibility. The grounds of appeal challenge the judge's decision on the basis that she has placed little weight on two witness statements (by the sponsor and the sponsor's wife respectively) although she had attached weight to an affidavit by the appellant's biological mother in circumstances in which,
this evidence has not been confirmed by independent documentary evidence to confirm that it is indeed written by the appellant's biological mother. In addition, there was no full explanation why the appellant's mother abdicated her parental responsibilities.
Likewise, whilst the judge accepted that the sponsor, as he had claimed, remained in contact with the appellant's school, she found that there was "no evidence to authenticate his claim." The judge also found that there was no evidence of the "grandmother's medical ailments or a witness statement from the uncle as to why they could no longer look after the appellant."
3. I find that the appeal should be dismissed. First, the assessment of the evidence was a matter for the judge. She had the opportunity of reading the documentary evidence and hearing oral evidence from the sponsor who attended the First-tier Tribunal hearing. Having heard examined all the evidence, the judge was required to carry out a robust fact-finding exercise giving reasons for her findings and I find that she has done this. She attached little weight to the sponsor's wife's statement [17] because this had been "written in very similar terms and phrasing to the statement that purported to be from the appellant." Likewise, she attached little weight to the appellant's written statement which she found to be "written in a language which is unlikely to be used by a child of the appellant's age." In each case, the judge has assessed the evidence and given reasons as to why she has decided to attach weight or not to that evidence. The affidavit from the appellant's mother differed entirely from the statements of the appellant and the sponsor's wife and I can identify no reason why, having given clear reasons for attaching little weight to the statements, the judge should have erred in law by accepting that the affidavit before her had been signed by the appellant's biological mother. The judge dealt with the submission from the Presenting Officer [18] that the mother "may have been coerced into giving up her son." However, it is clear that she took the evidence at face value and was right to investigate "the rights and wrongs of how this came about". Likewise, it was open to the judge to accept the evidence of the sponsor without seeking documentary corroboration as the grounds suggest should have been sought. The judge assessed all the evidence before her and has given cogent reasons to the attachment of weight to the various items of evidence in each case. She reached an outcome which was clearly available to her. The grounds amount to little more than a disagreement with the judge's findings.

Notice of Decision
4. This appeal is dismissed.
5. There is no anonymity direction.

Signed Date 20 January 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane