UI-2024-005139

  • 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
Case No: UI-2024-005139

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61628/2023
LP/06548/2024

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decided without a hearing Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 25 February 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BLUNDELL

Between

ERICA KOUFIE
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Bibi. Permission to appeal against that decision was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Handler.
2. The papers were placed before Upper Tribunal Judge Ruddick on 3 December 2024. UTJ Ruddick gave directions on that date. Amongst other things, those directions required the respondent to file and serve a response to the grounds under rule 24.
3. The respondent filed her response on 18 December 2024. The respondent accepts in that response that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law and that the decision falls to be set aside. The respondent accepts, in sum, that the appellant met the requirements of paragraph 276B and accepts, therefore, that Judge Bibi was in error in dismissing the appeal.
4. The respondent invites the Upper Tribunal to substitute a decision allowing the appellant’s appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds on the basis that the requirements of the Immigration Rules are met: TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109 refers.
5. In these circumstances, there is no need to hold an oral hearing. The appellant’s appeal was brought on human rights grounds and the respondent now accepts that the appeal should be allowed. The appellant also has the benefit of the letter from the Secretary of State confirming that she meets the requirements of paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules. She cannot hope for anything more from this appeal, and there is no need for any further submissions.
6. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed on the basis suggested by the respondent.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the FtT is set aside by consent. I substitute a decision allowing the appellant’s appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds.


Mark Blundell

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

21 February 2025