United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/14824/2017

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Bradford	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24 th June 2019	On 11 th July 2019

 

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

 

 

Between

 

Tahir [A]

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr Malik, HUMD Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

1.              This is the appellant's appeal against the decision of Judge O'Hanlon made following a hearing at Bradford on 24 ^th April 2018.

2.              He applied for leave to remain on the basis of his family and private life on 23 ^rd March 2016 but was refused on 9 ^th September 2016. Judge O'Hanlon dismissed his appeal. The appellant could not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules. Judge O'Hanlon accepted that he enjoyed a family life with his son and that he had very regular contact with him. His son's mother has refugee status in the UK and there was realistically no question of the appellant's son returning to Pakistan with him. Nevertheless Judge O'Hanlon considered that the decision to remove the appellant was proportionate.

3.              This matter came before Judge Bagral on 28 ^th September 2018. Judge Bagral set aside the decision of Judge O'Hanlon and listed the appeal to be resumed before her so that the parties could make submissions in relation to Section 117B(6) of the 2002 Act.

4.              At the time of the hearing before Judge Bagral the appellant's son was not a qualifying child but by the date of the hearing before me, Mr Malik produced evidence that he had been granted British citizenship.

5.              Mr Diwnycz said that he could not confirm the grant of citizenship from his own file, but assuming that the document shown by Mr Malik accords with Home Office records, he accepted that the child was a qualifying child and it would not be reasonable to expect him to leave the UK. He agreed in the circumstances that the appeal ought to be allowed. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's position is no longer that it is in the public interest for the appellant to be removed.

Decision

6.              The original judge erred in law and his decision has been set aside. It is remade as follows. The appellant's appeal is allowed.

 

No anonymity direction is made.

 

 

 

Signed Date 2 July 2019

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor