OA/08933/2015 & OA/08935/2015

  • 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 Numbers: OA/08933/2015
OA/08935/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision Promulgated
On 15 December 2016
On 16 December 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK


Between

PD
IU
(anonymity direction made)
Appellants
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr D. Nelson-Iye, Legal representative
For the Respondent: Mr T. Wilding, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION PURSUANT TO RULE 39 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
1. The appellants are mother and son. They appealed to the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT) against decisions to refuse entry clearance as a partner and child. First-tier Tribunal Judge Howard ("the FtJ") dismissed their appeals after a hearing on 6 May 2016.
2. Permission to appeal against the decision of the FtJ having been granted, their appeals came before me on the above date.
3. By consent, the parties agreed the following:
(i) that the FtJ erred in law in dismissing the appeals under the Immigration Rules, and/or under Article 8 of the ECHR proper;
(ii) that the FtJ's decision should be set aside; and
(iii) that the decision should be re-made, allowing the appeal of each appellant.
4. Having heard the parties on the issue, and considering rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, I make a consent order in terms expressed in [3] above, considering it appropriate to do so, and thus allowing the appeal of each appellant. The consent order is as contained herein, no separate document being required.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Because of the age of the minor appellant I consider that an anonymity order is appropriate. Therefore, unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellants are granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify them or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellants and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.


Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek 15/12/16