UI-2023-003338 & Ors.

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision


IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
ON THE PAPERS
Case Nos: UI-2023-003338
UI-2023-003339
UI-2023-003340

First-tier Tribunal Nos: HU/54478/2022
HU/54479/2022
HU/55061/2022

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 27 November 2023

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LINDSLEY

Between

SHAILESHKUMAR NANJI MASANI (1)
NAYNABEN SHAILESH MASANI (2)
MAYUR SHAILESHKUMAR MASANI (3)
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellants are citizen of India, the first and second appellants being husband and wife, and the third appellant being their son. They arrived in the UK on 15th May 2015 as visitors. On 7th April 2021 they made an Article 8 ECHR application to remain in the UK. This application was refused in decisions of the respondent dated 6th and 27th July 2022. Their appeal against the decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cansick after a hearing on the 31st May 2023.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal ID Boyes on 4th August 2023 on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge had erred in law in failing to explain why there was no family life and why it should be treated less favourably.
3. The respondent filed a Rule 24 response written by senior presenting officer Mr C Avery dated 24th August 2023 agreeing that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law in the application of s.117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to the Article 8 ECHR assessment and submitting that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for remaking de novo.
4. An error of law is therefore found by consent. I find that this matter can be determined on the papers as the parties are in agreement that the First-tier Tribunal has erred in law and that the matter needs to be completely remade. I find that the extent of remaking makes it appropriate for the appeal to be remitted for rehearing to the First-tier Tribunal rather than remade in the Upper Tribunal.
Decision:
1. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law.
2. I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal.
3. I remit the appeal to be reheard de novo (with no findings preserved) by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal other than Judge Cansick.




Fiona Lindsley

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber


20th November 2023