OA/07337/2015

  • 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/07337/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On April 11, 2017
On April 21, 2017



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS


Between

master arshaq ali
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Mohammed (Legal Representative)
For the Respondent: Mr Harrison, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a national of Pakistan. He applied for admission as an EEA family member. The respondent refused his application on March 23, 2015.
2. The appellant appealed that decision on April 21, 2015 under Regulation 26 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 and Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. His appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Shanahan (hereinafter called the Judge) on April 21, 2016 and in a decision promulgated on May 18, 2016 the Judge dismissed his appeal. That decision was appealed on June 13, 2016 and Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Hodgkinson granted permission to appeal on October 4, 2016 finding that the Judge may have erred in not allowing the appeal under Regulation of the 2006 Regulations.
3. I do not make an anonymity order in this case.
4. Mr Mohammed submitted the respondent had not considered the appeal under Regulation 8 of the 2006 Regulations.
5. I pointed out to Mr Mohammed that following the decision of Sala (EFMs:Right of Appeal) [2016] UKUT 00411 (IAC) there no longer was a right of appeal where the family member fell within Regulation 8. Even if the respondent should have done the fact remained the Judge actually considered Regulation 8 in her decision and found it did not apply.
6. I indicated I had no jurisdiction to hear any appeal where the family member was a Regulation 8 family member and the correct approach would be for his client to make the appropriate application to the respondent.
7. The Judge had correctly dismissed the appeal having regard to Regulation 7 of the 2006 Regulations.


Notice of Decision
8. There was no error of law and the original decision shall stand.

Signed Date April 12, 2017




Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis



TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I do not make a fee award because I have dismissed the appeal.

Signed




Date April 12, 2017
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis