VA/02538/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 12 Jan 2017
• Promulgation date: 8 Mar 2017
• Publication date: 1 Feb 2022
• Last updated on: 1 Feb 2022

The decision

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Appeal Number: VA/02538/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 12 January 2017
On 8 March 2017


Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

Between

TOLULOPE OLUDOLUPO FANIYAN
(Anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - SHEFFIELD
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Faniyan, the Sponsor, represented the appellant
For the Respondent: Mr P Singh, Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the decision of the Entry Clearance Officer refusing her admission as a family visitor.
2. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision is, with respect, a little hard to follow because the appeal is emphatically dismissed on human rights grounds but it was dismissed after an unremarkable finding that refusing the application interferes with the private and family life of the appellant in Nigeria and her minor children who were living with their father in the United Kingdom and a finding at paragraph 33 of the decision that the appellant does satisfy the requirements of the Immigration Rules.
3. The finding that the appellant satisfies the requirements of the Immigration Rules is a little obscure but it must be what the judge meant because she finds unequivocally that there would be an incentive to return after the visit and there is no challenge to the appellant’s ability to speak English or be maintained and accommodated in the United Kingdom.
4. There is a history in this case of the appellant wishing to settle but it does not follow from the fact that a person would like to settle if that were permissible that she will disobey the Rules and stay if she enters in a different capacity.
5. I cannot understand why when the judge found that there was compliance with the Rules that she did not go on to allow the appeal. Mr Singh for the Secretary of State struggled with that point as well.
6. There is a Rule 24 notice which seems to suggest that because the judge did not say for how long the appellant’s husband, her present sponsor, would be remaining in the United Kingdom there was no basis for saying that the appellant would return without her husband and without her children. I do not see that that follows. It is simply something to consider and there is no proper basis that I can see for concluding that the appellant would not return if she entered the United Kingdom as a visitor. Obviously if she was so foolish as to do that then any future application would be looked at with the highest degree of scepticism.
7. It follows therefore that I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal because the judge’s decision is internally inconsistent and I substitute a decision allowing the appeal on human rights grounds because the appellant complies with the Rules and because this is a family case involving a mother and children.

Notice of Decision
The Appeal is allowed.


Signed

Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Dated 7 March 2017