![]() |
[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 >> IA270382014 [2016] UKAITUR IA270382014 (24 March 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2016/IA270382014.html Cite as: [2016] UKAITUR IA270382014 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IAC-FH- NL-V1
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/27038/2014
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
On 25 th February 2016 |
On 24 th March 2016 |
|
|
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ZUCKER
Between
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and
miss huma altaf
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr D Clarke, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr R Solomon, Counsel instructed by Shanthi & Co Solicitors
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Respondent, Ms Altaf is a citizen of Pakistan whose date of birth is recorded as 20 th June 1987. She made an application for a Residence Card as an extended family member having regard to Regulation 8 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations"). On 13 th June 2014 a decision was made to refuse the application and so she appealed. Her appeal was heard on 13 th August 2015 by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Birk sitting at Hatton Cross.
2. In every material particular Judge Birk found the case advanced by Ms Altaf credible and made positive findings but then went on to allow the appeal outright.
3. Not content with that decision, by Notice dated 11 th September 2015 the Secretary of State made an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal having regard to the guidance in the case of Ihemedu (OFMs - meaning) Nigeria [2011] UKUT 340 (IAC). The point in issue is that because the Regulations which mirror Directive 2004/38/EC gives the Secretary of State a discretion in these circumstances it was not open to the judge to allow the appeal outright.
4. Mr Solomon sought to persuade me that there was no error because the judge had not allowed the appeal under Regulation 17(4) but under Regulation 8(2).
5. I find, with respect to Mr Solomon that the distinction is without a difference. The reality is that it was not for the Tribunal to make the ultimate decision. It is for the Secretary of State. However she should take into account the findings now made.
Notice of Decision
In the circumstances I find that there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which I now set aside. I re-make the decision without interfering with any of the findings, all of which are preserved and allow the appeal so that it is now for the Secretary of State to exercise her discretion.
Signed Date
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Zucker