OA/09645/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 19 Jan 2017
• Promulgation date: 13 Feb 2017
• Publication date: 17 Nov 2021
• Last updated on: 17 Nov 2021

The decision

IAC-AH-LEM-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/09645/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 January 2017
On 13 February 2017




Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KING TD

Between


SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant
and

MR JASON COORE RHODEN

Claimant/Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Ian Jarvis, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: The sponsor attended in person


DECISION AND REASONS


1. The claimant is a citizen of Jamaica.

2. He sought entry clearance as a partner under the private and family life provisions of the Immigration Rules to join the sponsor and their children in the United Kingdom. That was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer in a decision of 30 March 2015. Essentially it was not accepted that the sponsor met the income requirement under the Rules or that there were any compassionate or compelling circumstances such as to engage Article 8 of the ECHR outside of the Rules.

3. The claimant sought to appeal against that decision on the basis of a breach of his human rights, which appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Majid on 13 July 2016. The appeal was allowed.

4. The respondent sought to appeal against that decision essentially on the basis that it was apparent from the wording of the determination taken as a whole that although it made reference to the claimant, fundamentally in substance the Judge had considered an altogether different case to the claim not relating to the claimant. It was contended therefore that it was defective as to its content and consequently as to its reasoning.

5. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted on that basis and thus the matter comes before me to determine the issue. I have before me also a letter dated 16 January 2017 from those acting on behalf of the claimant agreeing entirely that the decision cannot stand and should be set aside.

6. At the hearing the sponsor attended in person and the Secretary of State was represented by Mr Jarvis, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer.

7. Given the agreement of the parties there seems little merit in my analysing the decision of Judge Majid any further. It cannot be permitted to stand, not only because of the inherent inaccuracies contained therein, but also that it is entirely apparent that the claimant has not had a fair hearing of his appeal. In those circumstances the appeal by the Secretary of State is allowed to the extent that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside to be remade.

8. I have regard to the Senior President's Practice Direction. There clearly needs to be evidence heard upon the issue, effectively the claimant has yet to have any proper hearing in the process. Thus I send the matter back to the First-tier Tribunal for a full hearing to be undertaken of the appeal.


Notice of Decision

The appeal by the Secretary of State is allowed to the extent that the First-tier Tribunal decision is set aside to be remade.



Costs

Given the continuing nature of proceedings no order as to costs are made at this time.

No anonymity direction is made.



Signed Date 10 February 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge King TD