Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005146
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/63497/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 28th of February 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LODATO
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GIBBS

Between

INAYAT BEGUM
(ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr. Azmi, Counsel, instructed by Garg solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr. Mullen, Senior Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 5 February 2025

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant appeals a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. By the decision sent to the parties on 17 September 2024 First-tier Tribunal Judge Young-Harry (“the Judge”) refused the appellant’s human rights appeal.
Background
2. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan. She applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of her private and family life. Her case is that she is elderly, unwell and that her daughter in Pakistan is no longer able to care for her. Her home has also been damaged in a flood. The appellant therefore wants to be able to remain in the UK to live with her son and his family who are currently caring for her.
3. The Judge concluded that the appellant would not face very significant obstacles to integration on return to Pakistan. They accepted that the appellant had established both private and family life in the UK at [10] of the decision but were not persuaded that removal would be disproportionate.
Grounds of Appeal
4. The appellant appeals on four grounds:
i) Failure to adequately consider the appellant’s family life;
ii) Inadequate assessment of medical evidence and deteriorating health;
iii) Error in assuming housing damage can be repaired or alternative accommodation arranged;
iv) Misinterpretation of daughter’s ability and willingness to provide care.
5. Upper Tribunal Judge Loughran granted permission to appeal, with no restriction, by a decision sent to the parties on 26 November 2024.
Discussion and Reasons
6. We emphasise the need for appropriate judicial restraint before interfering with a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, particularly where the fact-finding Judge has considered evidence from a variety of sources and has undertaken an evaluation of it, set in the applicable legal framework. We remind ourselves that that such decisions must be read holistically and sensibly and that there is no requirement to give reasons for reasons.
7. Although Mr. Mullen initially sought to defend the Judge’s decision on all grounds he accepted that he was unable to direct us to any part of the decision where the Judge had considered the impact of removal on the appellant’s family life in the proportionality assessment. Mr. Mullen conceded that this ground involved a material error of law. We find that this concession is properly made. We are satisfied that, having found that family life existed between the adult appellant and her son in the UK, the judge failed to include that family life in their proportionality assessment. It must follow that an essential component of the proportionality balancing exercise was left out of account such that it is rendered materially incomplete and unlawful.
8. The central issue to be decided was whether the refusal decision amounted to a disproportionate interference with the appellant’s Article 8 human rights. The flaw in the judge’s assessment of this fundamental question involved a material error of law such that it must be set aside in its entirety. We are therefore satisfied that there is nothing to be gained by examining whether there were additional errors of reasoning as reflected in the remaining grounds of appeal.
Disposal
9. The parties expressed the view that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing because a full and extensive fact finding process is required. We agree.
Notice of Decision
10. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dated 17 September 2024 is set aside for a material error of law. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal in Birmingham, Priory Courts, for a rehearing before any Judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Haley-Young. No findings of fact are preserved.

L K Gibbs
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
10 February 2025