BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> IA008932013 & IA015682013 [2013] UKAITUR IA008932013 (11 July 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2013/IA008932013.html
Cite as: [2013] UKAITUR IA8932013, [2013] UKAITUR IA008932013

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


     

    Upper Tribunal

    (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)                               Appeal Number: IA/00893/2013

                                                                                                                                    IA/01568/2013

             

     

     

    THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

     

    Heard at Field House on                                                     Determination promulgated on

    1 July 2013                                              

     

     

    Before

     

    UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN

      DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DIGNEY

     

    Between

     

     SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

     

                                                                                                                      Appellant

    and

     

     

             JIWANJOT KAUR (MRS)

               MANINDER SINGH (MR)

     

                                                                                                                                    Respondents

    Representation:

     

    For the appellant: Ms Pal, Home Office Presenting Officer

    For the respondents: Mr Bellara

     

     

                  DETERMINATION AND REASONS

     

    1. On 26 November 2011 the first respondent made an application to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant. The second respondent applied as her dependent husband. It is accepted on both sides that the cases stand or fall together. The applications were refused on 10 December 2012 because the first respondent had not provided bank statements demonstrating the necessary amounts of money for the required period.  An appeal against the decisions was heard on 11 April 2013 and the appeal was allowed.

     

    1. Permission to appeal was granted. The trial judge concluded that the appellant had not properly applied her flexibility policy as set out in the case of Rodriguez (Flexibility Policy) [2013] UKUT 42 (IAC). That case is authority for the proposition that the UKBA is under a public law duty to give effect to its policy that applicants will be contacted where mandatory evidence is missing from their applications and they will be given an opportunity to provide this. The judge concluded that the policy had not been applied here, and if it had been the applications would have been successful as the first respondent would have been able to provide bank statements for the required period had she been asked to provide them. The judge allowed the appeal outright.

     

    1. The judge granting permission concluded that it was arguable that the original judge was not entitled to adopt this approach and should have considered remitting the matter to the Secretary of State for her to make a lawful decision. This is in fact the approach that was followed in Rodriguez; see the final sentence of the determination. Ms Pal urges us to take this course. Mr Bellara says that it is proper to allow the appeal outright where the position is clear. We do not agree; we are here dealing with questions of fairness and flexibility and it seems to us that such decisions are better made, in the first place, by the Secretary of State.

     

    1. It follows that we are satisfied that the original judge did make an error of law and we remake the decision  by allowing the appeal to the extent that the matter remains before the Secretary of State for a lawful decision in accordance with her policy. We would add that there was here an unlawful section 47 decision but that was properly dealt with by the original judge.

     

     

    The appeal is accordingly allowed

     

     

     

    Designated  Judge Digney    

    Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal                                                                           1 July 2013  

     

     

     

     

     

     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2013/IA008932013.html