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 >> EA066652016 [2018] UKAITUR EA066652016 (28 March 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/EA066652016.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR EA66652016, [2018] UKAITUR EA066652016 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/06665/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
At Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 28 March 2018 |
Before
Upper Tribunal Judge Blum
Between
PUVANESVARAN WELAPAH
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
NOTICE OF DECSION
1. In a decision promulgated on 17.8.17 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Bird concluded that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision dated 17.5.16 to refuse his application for an EEA residence card pursuant to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Judge Keane's decision relied on the Upper Tribunal decision of Sala [2016] UKUT 411. This was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1755.
2. In the notice of decision dated 14.2.18 I indicated that the Upper Tribunal was minded to find an error of law, set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal. If either of the parties was opposed to this course they were directed to inform the Tribunal in writing (giving reasons), not later than 28 days from the date the Directions were issued. Following that period, the parties were informed that the Upper Tribunal would issue its decision.
3. The Upper Tribunal has not received any correspondence from either party within the stipulated timeframe. In the light of Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1755, the First-tier Tribunal was wrong in law to conclude that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
4. The Upper Tribunal is consequently satisfied that the First-tier Tribunal's decision is marred by a material legal error (the unlawful view that it lacked jurisdiction).
Notice of Decision
The First-tier Tribunal decision is vitiated by a material error of law. The case is remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh (de novo) hearing, before a judge other than judge of the First-tier Tribunal Bird.
Signed Date
Upper Tribunal Judge Blum 27 th March 2018
