Tribunal decisions

The decision

The Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal number: OA/07958/2015
OA/07959/2015
OA/07960/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Promulgated
On November 9, 2016
On November 11, 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

[A K]
[H K]
HUMA [M]
(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION)
Appellants
and

THE ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs Kullar (Legal Representative)
For the Respondent: Mr Parmindar-Singh (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellants are citizens of Pakistan. The appellants applied for entry clearance as family dependants. The respondent refused their applications on April 9, 2015.

2. The appellants appealed those decisions under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on May 7, 2015.

3. The appeals came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Meyler (hereinafter referred to as the Judge) on April 4, 2016 and in a decision promulgated on April 11, 2016 the Judge refused the appellants' appeals under the Immigration Rules.

4. The appellants lodged grounds of appeal on May 4, 2016 submitting the Judge had erred by refusing the appeals despite the fact the respondent acknowledged in her refusal letter to having the missing bank statements.

5. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Davidge on September 9, 2016 who found the point arguable.

6. The matter came before me on the above date and I heard submissions from both representatives.

7. No anonymity direction has been made.

SUBMISSIONS

8. Mrs Kullar relied on the grounds and submitted the Judge had erred. The appellants had submitted all of the documents to the respondent who had not provided anything to the Tribunal. Copies of the documents submitted were re-produced in a bundle and the Judge having accepted the appellants' arguments on all other points erred by finding two documents had not been submitted because the Judge overlooked the respondent's own refusal letter. She submitted that the evidence was before the respondent and the Judge erred by failing to have regard to that part of the respondent's own refusal letter.

9. Mr Parmindar-Singh accepted the respondent had received documents as paragraph [3] of the refusal letter referred to the missing documents. The fact the documents appeared in the appellants' bundle together with the refusal letter suggests an error was made.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

10. The respondent refused the appellants' application for a variety of reasons. These issues were argued before the FTT Judge and in a detailed decision the Judge gave reasons for accepting the sponsor's evidence.

11. However, on one aspect of the appellants' claims the Judge found the Rules had not been met. The Judge found there was a lack of evidence for the period June 27 and September 4, 2014.

12. However, the respondent's own refusal letter acknowledged this evidence had been provided and in particular referred to the missing bank statements. In addition, the appellants claimed that the documents in their bundle mirrored what had been sent to the respondent.

13. Mr Parmindar-Singh accepted the submissions made and in those circumstances I am satisfied that there was an error in law and the Judge's decision should be set aside and remade.

DECISION

14. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law. I set aside the decision under the Immigration Rules.

15. I remake the decision and allow all appeals under the Immigration Rules.

Signed: Dated: 11 November 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

FEE AWARD
TO THE RESPONDENT

I make no fee award as I dismissed the appeal.

Signed: Dated: 11 November 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis