OA/11748/2013 & ors

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 10 Jun 2014
• Promulgation date: 3 Jul 2014
• Publication date: 9 Sep 2014
• Last updated on: 9 Sep 2014

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: OA/11748/2013
OA/11777/2013
OA/11778/2013
OA/11736/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Determination Promulgated
On 10 June 2014
On 3 July 2014



Before

LORD MATTHEWS
SITTING AS JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVIDGE


Between

MRS SHAZIA MUNIR BHATTI
MR ABDUL AHAD BHATTI
MISS ANZALA EMAN BHATTI
MISS ILSA AIMAN BHATTI
Appellants
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - ISLAMABAD
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellants: Mr Muhammad Munir Bhatti, Sponsor
For the Respondent: Mr L Tarlow

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. In the first place we are very grateful indeed to Mr Tarlow for a very fair presentation of the case which has made what, on the face of it, was a somewhat difficult arithmetical calculation rather easier for us.

2. The appeal is against a decision of Judge Scobbie of the First-tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 18 March 2014, and the issue before us was whether he was correct in calculating the income and savings of the appellant and her family.

3. The conclusions to which he came showed that the family fell short of the financial sums required in terms of the Immigration Rules. Mr Tarlow very fairly conceded that his calculations involved an element of speculation and for our own part we find it impossible to work out how the various conclusions were reached. That in itself seems to us to be an error of law but furthermore the judge refused to accept certain documentary evidence purely on the basis that he did not accept the sponsor's own word that the documents were submitted with the application. No adverse credibility findings at all were made in the determination and we would have expected some comment on the credibility of the sponsor or at least some reasoning as to why his word was not accepted in that regard. That again seems to us to be an error of law.

4. Mr Tarlow very fairly conceded that he would not resist any submission that an error of law was made. We find that the judge fell into error and we remake the decision. We heard unchallenged evidence from the sponsor as to his financial position. If his evidence is correct then he does in fact meet the financial provisions in terms of the Rules. We do not think it necessary to go into what his financial position is. There was no suggestion by Mr Tarlow that the sponsor does not meet the Rules and we accept what the latter had to say.

5. We allow all the appeals.






Signed H. Matthews Date


Lord Matthews
Sitting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal