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!



BAILII [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 >> HU193042019 [2021] UKAITUR HU193042019 (16 November 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2021/HU193042019.html
Cite as: [2021] UKAITUR HU193042019

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


 

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/19304/2019

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Bradford

Via Teams

Decision & Reasons Promulgated

On 15 October 2021

On 16 November 2021

 

 

 

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

 

 

Between

 

EKS

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant

 

 

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

 

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Rutherford

For the Respondent: Mr Bates, Senior Presenting Officer

 

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.              The appellant is a citizen of Afghanistan who was born in 2001. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Entry Clearance Officer dated 18 October 2019 refusing for entry clearance on the basis of his family life. The First-tier Tribunal, in a decision promulgated on 9 March 2021, dismissed his appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.

2.              At the initial hearing in the Upper Tribunal, Mr Bates, who appeared for the Entry Clearance Officer, told me that the respondent did not oppose the appeal. At [43], the judge had made a mistake of fact when he stated that the identity documents of the appellant's mother had not been referred to in her death certificate when reference had been made. Secondly, also at [43], the judge had reached a finding (that, notwithstanding the production of evidence of a death certificate, he was not satisfied that the appellant's mother had died) when the fact of her death had not been contested by the Entry Clearance Officer and the appellant and his representative had not been given the opportunity to make addressing the judge's concerns which had not been expressed at the hearing. Mr Bates accepted that the judge had proceeded in a manner which had been unfair to the appellant.

3.              In the circumstances, I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal for that Tribunal to remake the decision following a hearing de novo. None of the findings of fact of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. None of the findings of fact shall stand. The appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal for that Tribunal to remake the decision following a hearing de novo.

LISTING DIRECTIONS: return to First-tier Tribunal; not Judge Shepherd; first available date at Birmingham; no interpreter.

 

 

 

Signed Date 23 October 2021

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Lane

 

 

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

 

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellants are granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify them or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellants and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2021/HU193042019.html