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 >> EA012292015 [2018] UKAITUR EA012292015 (15 March 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/EA012292015.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR EA012292015, [2018] UKAITUR EA12292015 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: ea/01229/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House |
Determination & Reasons Promulgated |
On 26 January 2018 |
On 15 March 2018 |
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN
Between
Sabyasachi paul
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr M Hassan of Counsel, Hossain Law Associates
For the Respondent: Ms A Fijiwala, Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the respondent of 11 September 2015 refusing his application for a residence card as an extended family member of an EEA national. The judge, in light of the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Sala [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC) decided that there was no right of appeal and no jurisdiction in the Tribunal to consider the matter before it.
2. Permission to appeal against that decision was granted by a Judge of the Upper Tribunal in light of the decision in Khan [2017] EWCA Civ 1755 which found that Sala had been wrongly decided.
3. In a Rule 24 response, upon which Ms Fijiwala, who appeared on behalf of the respondent relied, an adjournment was sought until the matter was resolved by the forthcoming decision of the Supreme Court in SM (Algeria).
4. I conclude however that the preferred option in light of the fact that Khan remains good law, is for the matter to be remitted for a hearing in the First-tier Tribunal. It is of course open to the respondent if she so wishes to seek an adjournment from the First-tier Tribunal pending the decision in SM (Algeria).
No anonymity direction is made.
Signed Date