VA/00354/2015

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

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number VA/00354/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Centre City Tower, Birmingham Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 22nd March 2017 On 18th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

VIDYA VIDYA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

For the Appellant: Miss R Saini (Solicitor, Saini Law Offices Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Mrs R Pitterson (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This decision can by virtue of the error be relatively short. The Appellant had applied for a visit visa which was refused. The Appellant is a national of India and was born on the 16th of July 1956, she is now 60. Her appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lloyd-Smith at Stoke on the 25th of May 2016 and dismissed in a decision promulgated on the 1st of June 2016.

2. In the paragraph 1 of the decision the decision the Judge referred to the Appellant as a national of Pakistan and attributed to her a date of birth of the 28th of March 1978 making her 38, the date of the Refusal Notice was given as the 26th of October 2014rather than the 4th of December 2014. The Judge repeated the wrong nationality in paragraph 5 but other features of the Refusal Notice were correctly summarised. The appeal was dismissed on human rights and race discrimination grounds.

3. The Appellant sought permission to appeal on the basis of the errors including that the Appellant had not appealed on race discrimination grounds. It is also argued that the Judge erred in the approach taken to article 8. Permission was granted by Judge Gillespie on the basis that given the clear errors the Judge may have erred on the erroneous understanding of the facts.


4. The Secretary of State’s rule 24 response did not oppose the Appellant's application and invited the Upper Tribunal to determine the appeal with a fresh oral hearing. Given the errors I take the view that this is a decision that need to be remade in its entirety and requires reliable findings made on an accurate factual basis. The Appellant is entitled to have her appeal heard with the confidence that it has been properly considered and that she has not been confused with anyone else or their family circumstances.

5. In the circumstances this appeal is remitted to First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing on all issues. In doing so I would not want the Appellant to gain false hope. The application of article 8, against the background of the Immigration Rules setting the public interest in the proportionality exercise (if article 8 is engaged), has tightened in recent years and the fact of remittal is not to be taken as an indication as to how the appeal should be decided.

CONCLUSIONS

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law.

I set aside the decision.

The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for re-hearing on all issues. Not to be heard by Judge Lloyd

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 and I make no order.

Fee Award

In remitting the decision the issue of a fee award will remain a matter for the First-tier Tribunal at the conclusion of the decision.


Signed:

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (IAC) Parkes

Dated: 22nd March 2017