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 >> EA104462016 [2018] UKAITUR EA104462016 (10 April 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/EA104462016.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR EA104462016 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/10446/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Bradford |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
On 13 th March 2018 |
On 10 th April 2018 |
|
|
Before
Deputy upper tribunal JUDGE Kelly
Between
MR HAMDULLAH
(anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Ms A Hashmi, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr M Diwnycz, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against the decision of Designated Tribunal Judge Shaerf, promulgated on the 25 th August 2017, to dismiss his appeal against refusal of his application for an EEA Residence Card as the extended family member of a person exercising European Community Treaty rights in the United Kingdom.
2. The judge dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, following and applying the decision in Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC). Through no fault of Judge Shaerf, that transpires to have been an error of law because it was subsequently held that Sala had been wrongly decided ( Khan [2017] EWCA Civ 1755). It is therefore necessary to set aside his decision.
3. Given the basis upon which Judge Shaerf dismissed the appeal, the substantive merits have yet to be determined. It is therefore appropriate to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal where it will be heard afresh. For the convenience of the appellant, the appeal will now be heard at the Bradford Hearing Centre.
Notice of Decision
4. The appeal is allowed.
5. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside and will be heard afresh at the hearing centre in Bradford.
No anonymity direction is made.
Judge Kelly Date: 9 th April 2018
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal