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!
 |
[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 >> IA199882013 & ors [2014] UKAITUR IA199882013 (6 June 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/IA199882013.html Cite as: [2014] UKAITUR IA199882013 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/19988/2013
ia/19995/2013
ia/20013/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
| Heard at Field House | Determination Promulgated |
| On 5 June 2014 | On 06 June 2014 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ESHUN
Between
MISS FREDIELYN BAYOT ONIA
MR SANTINO MATTHEW ONIA SALAZAR
MR CHRISTOPHER KHAELL ONIA VILLAROMA
Appellants
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Not legally represented
For the Respondent: Mr T Wilding, HOPO
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellants have been granted permission to appeal the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cameron in which he dismissed the appeals of the appellants against the decision of the respondent made on 17 May 2013 to refuse their applications for leave to remain on the basis of family and private life in the UK.
2. The first appellant attended the hearing with her mother and the third appellant.
2. The appellants are citizens of the Philippines. The first appellant is the mother of the second and third appellants. The appellants came to the UK on 23 December 2012 with valid leave as visitors until 30 April 2013. They applied for leave to remain on 22 March 2013.
3. The judge’s findings are set out at paragraphs 32 to 55.
4. The appellants were granted permission to appeal by First-tier Tribunal Judge Ford who said it is arguable that in not considering and making findings on the best interests of the 2nd and 3 appellants, Judge Cameron may have made a material error of law.
5. I find that the judge did not make an error of law. The appellants were unrepresented at the hearing before the judge. The judge heard oral evidence from the first appellant. She adopted her statement dated 25 March 2014 subject to an amendment at paragraph 5 and also adopted her statement dated 15 March 2012. I accepted Mr. Wildings’ submission that the judge encapsulated the evidence, weighed it up and made his decision. The decision included a finding at paragraph 52 that the best interests of the children are to remain with their mother and to grow up in their own culture. The judge’s finding was perfectly sustainable on the evidence that was before him.
6. I find that permission to appeal should not have been granted in this case.
7. The judge’s decision dismissing the appeals of the appellants shall stand.
Signed Date
Upper Tribunal Judge Eshun
