Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/11849/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at: Columbus House, Newport
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On: 1 August 2016
On: 11 August 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS

Between

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - NEW DELHI
Appellant
and

LUTHFA SALINA KHANOM
(anonymity direction not made)
Respondent

Representation

For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Mr I Richards, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION

1. This is an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Clarke in which he allowed the appeal of Luthfa Salina Khanom, a citizen of Bangladesh, against the Entry Clearance Officer's decision to refuse entry clearance as the dependent adult daughter of the Sponsor Dewan Monowar Ghazi, on Article 8 ECHR grounds. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to Ms Khanom as 'the Applicant'.

2. The Applicant applied for entry clearance on 9 July 2014 along with her mother Somsun Nessa Khatun. Both applications were refused by the Entry Clearance Officer on 22 August 2014. The Applicant and her mother exercised their right of appeal against the decisions and the appeals were heard together before Judge Clarke on 23 October 2015 and dismissed by virtue of the Immigration Rules but allowed on Article 8 ECHR grounds. The Entry Clearance Officer applied for permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal Judge's decision in respect of the Applicant but not in respect of her mother. The application was granted on 23 May 2016 by First-tier Tribunal Judge Astle in the following terms

The grounds argue that the Judge erred in failing to resolve areas of conflict with regard to family life between the Sponsor and his adult daughter.

The Judge was satisfied as to the biological relationship between the Sponsor and his daughter but her representative accepted (paragraph 41) that she could not meet the requirements of the Rules. In considering Article 8 outside them the Judge found that family life existed between them. It is arguable that this finding (paragraph 52) is at odds with his finding that there were not more than emotional ties (paragraph 58). Permission is therefore granted.

3. At the hearing before me Mr Richards appeared for the Entry Clearance Officer and there was no appearance on behalf of the Applicant. Mr Richards relied on the grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal and I reserved my decision.

Decision

4. Following the hearing but before preparing this decision a letter was received from the Sponsor dated 28 July 2016. The pertinent paragraph of the letter, copied to the Home Office Presenting Officer's Unit in Cardiff, reads as follows:

I write to inform the court that the Entry Clearance officer has now granted Ms Khanom the entry clearance visa for 2.5 years. I have attached a copy of both visa papers received from Dhaka. In light of this, there is no need for a further hearing on the same matter. I will not attend court on 02.08.2016.

5. The copy document attached shows the post reference 3603883 and is an Entry Clearance valid from 12 July 2016 to 21 April 2019 endorsed "Leave to enter outside of the rules".

6. It is clear in these circumstances that the Entry Clearance Officer has acted upon the decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing the appeal and that the intention of the Entry Clearance Officer, although not communicated to Mr Richards, was to seek permission to withdraw the appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's decision. I consent to such withdrawal.

Conclusion

7. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been withdrawn by the Entry Clearance Officer.

8. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands.

Signed: Date:

J F W Phillips
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal