2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at

Appeal Number: HU/10063/2017. THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Newport. Decision &. Reasons. Promulgated. On 16 November 2018. On 13 December ...

0 downloads 1 Views 70KB Size

Recommend Documents


2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
May 14, 2018 - (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). Appeal Number: ... decision made on 10 March 2017 to refuse to grant him further discretionary ..... He did not have a criminal record. Despite being ... Notice of Decision. The decision of ...

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
May 4, 2017 - Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision of 27 January. 2017 to refuse his protection and human rights claim. 2. The appellant ... file records showed that he had been released from detention on 28 April 2017 fol

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Feb 21, 2018 - Judge Sullivan heard the case at Hatton Cross on 24th July 2017 and in a. Decision and Reasons promulgated on 21st August of that year ...

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
May 2, 2018 - Hatton Cross on 6th October 2017. He allowed the appeal. He made two significant findings, which one might expect in the case of this nature,.

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Apr 30, 2018 - Maxwell promulgated on 12 October 2017, in which the Appellant's appeal ... background country material which showed that it was more ...

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
May 3, 2018 - by Al Shabab, having begun to receive threats by telephone in early 2015. She did not leave her job, but later two of her colleagues were killed ...

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Sep 26, 2018 - exposure and possessing an identity document – a Belgian identity card – with intent, resulting in a total of fourteen months' imprisonment;. (v).

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Oct 19, 2018 - release. 10. Having so found the Judge then went on to consider the .... front of 10 Downing Street on 4th February 2018, another at a protest.

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Oct 19, 2018 - enquiries of her - they were told that her sister did not know anything ... Thereafter, with the assistance of her sister's husband, arrangements.

2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Oct 22, 2018 - For the Appellant: Mr A Tinsley, Counsel instructed by CLP Solicitors. For the Respondent: Mr T Wilding, Home Office Presenting Officer.

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Appeal Number: HU/10063/2017

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport

Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 December 2018

On 16 November 2018 Before

MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J F W PHILLIPS Between THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and RAZAN [S] Respondent Representation: For the Appellant: Mr C. Howells, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer. For the Respondent: Dr N. [S] DETERMINATION AND REASONS 1.

The respondent, whom we shall call “the claimant”, is probably stateless: she has identity documents furnished by the Palestinian authority. She appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against the refusal of her application for Entry Clearance as a spouse: her husband, Dr [S], is a British Citizen, as are their children. The refusal was on the grounds that the application was not accompanied by the required specified documents.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2018

Appeal Number: HU/10063/2017

2.

First-tier Tribunal Judge James allowed the appeal in a determination which is characterised in the Secretary of State’s grounds of appeal with considerable justice as “hopelessly confused”. The judge found that the Rules were not met and that “the appeal fails on this point"”. The judge then referred to a “discretion in regards to article 8 and potential points raised … which the respondent had failed to exercise”. The judgment continues: “Therefore the Appellant’s appeal is allowed to the extent that the Respondent has failed to exercise her discretion, and the consequent effect of that decision is to vitiate the entirety of the Respondent’s decision, which as it stands is unlawful. I find that the Respondent’s decision in relation to the Appellant remains outstanding with the Respondent and she awaits a lawful decision on her application. I allow the appeal to this limited extent.”

3.

In the next paragraph, however, the judge writes: “Thus [sic] in summary the Appellant’s documentation submitted in support of her appeal fully addresses and counters the Respondent’s objections.”

4.

And finally: “The Appellant has discharged the burden of proof upon her and the reasons given by the Respondent do not justify the refusal of entry clearance. Therefore the Respondent’s decision is not in accordance with the law and the applicable Immigration Rules. Appeal allowed.”

5.

So far as we can see, the appeal is determined both against the claimant and in her favour on the basis of the Immigration Rules; it is allowed to a limited extent on the basis of a discretion unknown to the law and at the same time allowed outright; the reasons for allowing the appeal are not permissible grounds of appeal following the coming into force of the appeals provisions of the Immigration Act 2014, and the only permissible ground, that the decision was a breach of the claimant’s human rights, is not discussed, nor is any conclusion reached upon it. It is extremely regrettable that the claimant and her family have been misled by a decision of such incompetence.

6.

The position, as we endeavoured to explain to Dr [S], is as follows. By failing to send the required documents with her application, the claimant did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules and could not expect a decision in her favour. She was entitled to argue that in these circumstances the refusal of Entry Clearance was a disproportionate interference with her rights protected by art 8 but did not really do so: the grounds of appeal are concerned mostly with attempting to show that the requirements of the Rules could have been satisfied. In determining any question of whether the interference was proportionate the Tribunal was and would be bound to take into account that the relevant features of the

2

Appeal Number: HU/10063/2017

Rules are there in order to enable applications to be processed efficiently and it is extremely difficult to see how it would be disproportionate to maintain a negative decision on this application when the claimant had and has the opportunity at hand to make a new application that would be effective in securing her what she seeks by complying with the Rules. 7.

For the reasons we have given, Judge James erred in law. We set the decision aside. The Entry Clearance Officer’s decision was justified if not mandated by the Rules and for the reasons given in the previous paragraph the claimant has failed to show that the resulting interference with her Convention rights is disproportionate. We therefore substitute a decision dismissing her appeal. C. M. G. OCKELTON VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Date: 26 November 2018.

3

Life Enjoy

" Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced! "

Get in touch

Social

© Copyright 2013 - 2019 DOKUMENTIX.COM - All rights reserved.