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 >> HU055762018 [2021] UKAITUR HU055762018 (18 May 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2021/HU055762018.html
Cite as: [2021] UKAITUR HU055762018, [2021] UKAITUR HU55762018

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/05576/ 2018 (v)

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard by Skype for business

Decision & Reasons Promulgated

On the 23 April 2021

On 18 May 2021

 

 

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS

 

 

Between

 

REHAN ANWAR

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT made)

Appellant

AND

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr Gajjar, Counsel on behalf of the appellant.

For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, Senior Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction :

1.              The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge Khawar (hereinafter referred to as the "FtTJ") promulgated on the 20 November 2019.

2.              By his decision, the Judge dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Respondent's decision dated 12 February 2018 refusing his human rights claim, made in the context of an application for indefinite leave to remain based on long residence. The Respondent refused the application on the basis that the Appellant had misrepresented his earnings as between those declared to the Home Office in earlier applications for leave to remain and as declared to HMRC, in particular in the years 2009-2010 and 2010-11.

3.              The Respondent therefore refused the application under paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules ("Paragraph 322(5)") on the basis that the Appellant's presence in the UK was undesirable due to his character and conduct.

4.              The FtTJ did not make an anonymity order and no application was made for such an order before the Upper Tribunal.

5.              The hearing took place on 23 April 2021, by means of Skype for Business. which has been consented to and not object1d to by the parties. A face- to- face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and both parties agreed that all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The advocates attended remotely via video as did the appellant who was able to see and hear the proceedings being conducted. There were no issues regarding sound, and no technical problems were encountered during the hearing and I am satisfied both advocates were able to make their respective cases by the chosen means.

6.              I am grateful to Mr Gajjar and Mr Diwnycz for their clear oral submissions.

Background:

7.              The appellant is a national of Pakistan. He first entered the United Kingdom on 17 October 2006, on the basis of a student visa which was valid from 10 October 2006 until 30 November 2008. The appellant's leave was extended on a number of occasions thereafter until March 21, 2016.

8.              On 17 March 2016 he applied for indefinite leave to remain as a Tier 1 (General) migrant but later varied this to an application for indefinite leave to remain under paragraph 276B on long residence grounds.

9.              On 12 th February 2018, the application was refused by the respondent under paragraph 322 (5) on the basis that the appellant failed to disclose his true earnings to HMRC for his Tier 1 application lodged on December 23, 2010. The decision letter identifies the years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. As a result, his application for indefinite leave to remain on long residence grounds was also refuse the same reasons under paragraph 276B (ii) and (iii).

10.          The appellant appealed the refusal and reference was made to his former accountants having negligently/incompetently prepared his tax returns.

11.          The appeal was heard by the FtT on 11 December 2018 who in a decision promulgated on 9 January 2019 dismissed the appeal by rejecting the appellant's claim that he had not been provided with either draft or final accounts checked by the former accountants.

12.          Permission was sought to appeal this decision and whilst the FtT refused permission, the Upper Tribunal granted permission on the ground that it was arguable that the judge had failed to keep in his mind when analysing the evidence that the respondent bore the burden of proof in establishing dishonesty.

13.          The appeal came before the Upper Tribunal (Deputy Judge Alis) who in a determination promulgated on 1 May 2019 reached the conclusion that the decision of the FtTJ involved the making of an error on a point of law and identified at [29] that the judge failed to address the fact that the P 60s did not total the amount submitted in the tax return which brought into question what figures the accountant submitted and whilst the judge criticised the appellant for producing no evidence from the former accountant, this overlooked the fact that the firm had been dissolved in January 2015. The judge also accepted that the accountants may have "messed up the previous year's accounts (2009 - 2010) and was a discrepancy was larger, the expense explanation was the same for the second year as it was the first". The judge therefore concluded that the issues raised went to the "core of the assessment" and thus found material errors of law. Judge Alis remitted the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard again.

The appeal before the First-tier Tribunal:

14.          The appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse leave came before the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Khawar) on the 4 September 2019.

15.          In a determination promulgated on the 20 November 2019, the FtTJ dismissed the appeal on human rights grounds, having considered that issue in the light of the appellant's compliance with the Immigration Rule in question and on Article 8 grounds.

16.          The FtTJ considered the evidence relating to the issue under Paragraph 322 (5) at paragraphs [22-39]. In relation to the relevant tax year 2009/2010 the FtTJ did not accept that the previous judge had made a finding that he was not dishonest but concluded that the period appeared to have been disregarded by the appellant and also the respondent and thus he also disregarded the same because there was no evidence in relation to it. Nonetheless he did not conclude that the appellant was not dishonest for that year (at [22]).

17.          The FtTJ therefore concentrated on the discrepancy in the appellant's tax return for 2010/2011. He set out that the appellant had initially declared a total income of £20,356 and that in January 2016 the appellant amended these figures by filing an amended tax return declaring self-employment of £30,413 and PAYE employment of £11,007.94 and claimed an additional £21,851. The judge noted "this amendment effectively bought the appellant declared earnings to HMRC more in line with those city claims the Home Office as part of his Tier 1 application."

18.          The FtTJ went on to consider the issue as to whether the appellant was aware at the time that his tax return was filed at the false figures/discrepant figures were filed. The appellant's case was that he did not know what figures had been filed because the accountants did not provided with a copy of the tax return was filed and did not have to sign tax return because it was one that was failed online without any reference to him.

19.          The FtTJ considered the explanations given by the appellant by reference to his former accountants but rejected that account at pargraphs [28 - 30] stating that it was highly unlikely that he would not have been told how much tax he was required to pay, and that given his background as a business consultant he would have been aware that his income self-employment would be taxed at the same rate as PAYE income (at paragraph [31]). The judge took against the appellant for his failure to be able to work out 20% of £30,000 (at [32]) and at [33]-[35], the FtTJ concluded that the appellant's evidence about the error and how it came to light was undermined by the fact that his present accountants appeared to indicate that the appellant was already aware of discrepancies in his tax returns.

20.          When considering the evidence concerning the former solicitors (the evidence demonstrating that they were struck off in 2015) the FtTJ did not consider that this assisted the appellant and that if he provided his business records it is difficult to see how they could have failed to declare all of the self-employed income and that the new solicitors did not say how the error could have occurred (at [36]). The FtTJ took into account the appellant's qualifications and employment but on the totality of the evidence he was satisfied that the respondent discharged the burden of proof to establish that the appellant had used dishonesty (at [38]-[39]).

21.          The FtTJ therefore dismissed the appeal.

22.          Permission to appeal was issued and on 1 May 2020, permission to appeal was granted by FtTJ O'Keefe.

The hearing before the Upper Tribunal:

23.          In the light of the COVID-19 pandemic t he Upper Tribunal issued directions on the 6 August 2020, inter alia, indicating that it was provisionally of the view that the error of law issue could be determined without a face- to- face hearing. The appellant submitted written submissions on 29 August 2020 but with no compliance on behalf of the respondent. Further directions were given for a remote hearing to take place and that this could take place via Skype. Both parties have indicated that they were content for the hearing to proceed by this method. Therefore, the Tribunal listed the hearing to enable oral submissions to be given by each of the parties with the assistance of their advocates.

24.          Mr Gajjar on behalf of the appellant relied upon the written grounds of appeal and the written submissions dated 29 August 2020.

25.          There has been no written response filed on behalf of the respondent.

26.          I also heard oral submission from the advocates, and I am grateful for their assistance and their clear oral submissions.

27.          The relevant legal provisions are as follows.

28.          The power to grant leave to enter or remain arises under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act"), which provides:

"Except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, where a person is not a British citizen;

(a) he shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, this Act;

(b) he may be given leave to enter the United Kingdom (or, when already there, leave to remain in the United Kingdom) either for a limited or for an indefinite period."

29.          The Immigration Rules set out the way in which the Secretary of State would exercise his power under section 3(1) of the 1971 Act. The Immigration Rules are made by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament under section 3(2) of the 1971 Act.

30.          Paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules provides:

"The requirements to be met by an applicant for indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence in the United Kingdom are that:

(i)(a) he has had at least 10 years continuous lawful residence in the United Kingdom.

(ii) having regard to the public interest there are no reasons why it would be undesirable for him to be given indefinite leave to remain on the ground of long residence, taking into account his:

(a) age; and

(b) strength of connections in the United Kingdom; and

(c) personal history, including character, conduct, associations, and employment record; and

(d) domestic circumstances; and

(e) compassionate circumstances; and

(f) any representations received on the person's behalf; and

(iii) the applicant does not fall for refusal under the general grounds for refusal.

(iv) the applicant has demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the English language and sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Appendix KoLL.

(v) the applicant must not be in the UK in breach of immigration laws except that any period of overstaying of 28 days or less will be disregarded, as will any period of overstaying between periods of entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain of up to 28 days and any period of application made within that 28 day period."

31.          Paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules provides:

"Grounds on which leave to remain and variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom should normally be refused.

...

(5) the undesirability of permitting the person concerned to remain in the United Kingdom in the light of his conduct (including convictions which do not fall within paragraph 322(1C), character or associations or the fact that he represents a threat to national security.

32.          There are six grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant. They can be summarised as follows.

33.          Ground 1 asserts that the FtTJ failed to engage with the submission that the appellant had no case to answer as the decision letter of 12 th February 2018 did not make an allegation that the appellant had been dishonest to either of the two government departments. This was a submission that was advanced on the appellant's behalf are set out in the original skeleton argument (at paragraph 5).

34.          Ground 2 challenges paragraph [22] of the decision of the FtTJ. By reference to the decision, it is submitted that the final two sentences of that paragraph demonstrate an error of law. The judge disregarded the position for 2009/2010 but further stated that he did not conclude that the appellant was not dishonest. In this respect, the judge failed to apply the correct burden of proof to assess whether Secretary of State had made out that there was a significant discrepancy regarding the 2009/10 return in order for a suspicion of dishonesty to arise (paragraph 42 of Balajigari).

35.          It is further submitted that it was irrational for the judge to conclude that Judge Beach had not found in favour of the appellant regarding 2009/10. The judge did not reach a neutral finding but found that dishonesty had not been made out. Whilst the decision was set aside by the UK, the positive findings had not been the subject of challenge by either party and the judge had identified factors which the judge in the present case had overlooked in his assessment. Notwithstanding those matters, the judge failed to consider the various factors raised as part of the appellant's innocent explanations as to why there had been no dishonesty on his part. They were set out in the skeleton argument at paragraph 7.

36.          Ground 3 asserts that there was procedural unfairness again relating to paragraph [22] where the judge recorded that 2009/2010 had been disregarded by the respondent but notwithstanding this, the judge stated that he did not find that the appellant was not dishonest. This is arguably materially contaminated the subsequent findings. A further procedural unfairness arose from [32] when the judge held against the appellant the period of silence in response to the basic question set out at that paragraph. The judge attributed silence to the fact that the appellant was fully aware that 20% of £30,000 was £6000 meaning the tax payment he made £3000 is considerably less. The appellant had provided a statement with the permission application concerning the circumstances. In this respect the judge contravened the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in R (SS (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2018) EWCA Civ 1391 at paragraphs 36 - 37.

37.          Ground 4 submits that the judge overlooked the material aspects of his innocent explanation. They are set out in detail by reference to the appellant's bundle at paragraphs 13.1-13.6 of the skeleton argument.

38.          Ground 5 submits that the judge reached irrational conclusions by reference to paragraphs [30], [29] and [33 - 35].

39.          Ground 6 asserts that the judge failed to apply the correct standard of proof at [36] when dealing with the claim that the accountant's conduct was so poor that they were subjected to various actions by the Companies Register (see appellant's bundle D5 - D8) before being struck off in 2015. The judge dismissed this aspect of the innocent explanation by finding that it was "not necessarily the case as a matter of course" that they would make a mistake in relation to the appellant's tax returns given their dilatory conduct of their own affairs. The finding was made without any regard to the errors made in relation to the PAYE income. The key point is that no combination of the 3 P60's provided to the accountants could have led to the total of £7093 as his accountants declared to HMRC which went to highlight their incompetence.

40.          In his oral submissions Mr Gajjar carefully went through each of the grounds at length and did so by reference to the bundle of documents that was before the FtTJ to demonstrate that the decision of the FtTJ involved the making of an error of law. At the conclusion of those submissions Mr Diwnycz in behalf of the respondent informed the Tribunal that having read, listened to the submissions, and having considered them, he conceded that the grounds were made out and that the decision demonstrated the making of an error on a point of law and therefore could not stand and should be set aside. When later asked to clarify whether he conceded Ground 1 which related to the failure of the respondent to raise an allegation of dishonesty within the decision letter, he confirmed that the issue of dishonesty was not a point made in the decision letter and that the other elements set out in the grounds supported his contention relating to ground 1. Therefore he conceded that ground 1 was also made out.

41.          Having made that concession, I invited the parties to address me as to the materiality of the other errors set out in the grounds if ground 1 was made out. Mr Gajjar submitted that ground 1 was based on the failure to raise the issue of dishonesty and the decision letter therefore it followed that there was no dishonest conduct that would support the decision taken overall. He therefore submitted that the decision should be set aside and for the Tribunal to remake the appeal by allowing the appeal on human rights grounds. He further submitted that the appellant met the requirements of 10 years lawful continuous residence and that the only issues raised in the decision letter was under paragraph 276B (ii) and (iii) and that if the issue of dishonesty fell away, the appellant therefore met the requirements for long residence. Mr Diwnycz was in agreement with that submission.

42.          Given the concession made in behalf of the respondent, it is not necessary for me to set out full reasons as to why the decision of the FtTJ should be set aside having demonstrated the making an error on a point of law. I shall briefly summarise them.

43.          In relation to ground 2, the grounds identify paragraph [22] of the FtTJ's decision where it is submitted that the judge reached a contradictory finding. I have considered paragraph [22] and the earlier decision of Judge Beach.

44.          Having done so, whilst I do not accept the submission that the finding of Judge Beach was determinative/binding on the FtTJ given that no factual findings were preserved by the Upper Tribunal relating to the tax year 2009/2010, I am satisfied that the judge was in error in his assessment. The FtTJ identified that the appellant was not cross-examined about the tax year 2009/2010 and also identified that the period had been "disregarded by not only appellant but also the respondent". The judge then went on to state "I also disregard the same because I simply do not have any evidence in relation thereto". However whilst all the parties appeared to disregard that period, the judge went on to state "however, I do not conclude that the appellant was not dishonest." In reaching that view, the judge gave no reasons for reaching the conclusion and did not factor in his own earlier finding that he had disregarded consideration of that tax year. I agree with the submission made by Mr Gajjar that the two elements of that paragraph do not sit well together. It was of importance in my judgement because if there was no discrepancy in one tax year, it was evidence that could potentially undermine the claim that the under declarations for the other tax year were dishonest.

45.          Whilst ground 3 relies on procedural unfairness in relation to the assessment made at paragraph [22], I do not consider that the argument that the judge was procedurally unfair adds anything more to the submissions made in respect of ground 2. Nor do I consider that the judge was procedurally unfair by asking the appellant to calculate 20% of £30,000 (see [32]). Whilst the submissions made refer to this being contrary to the decision SS (Sri Lanka) in my judgement this was not a matter of demeanour but the judge taking into account whether the appellant could properly answer a question that could reasonably be have expected to have been answered. I am not satisfied that there was any procedural unfairness in the way the grounds and submission set out.

46.          However, in relation to grounds 4 - 6, I am satisfied that the FtTJ failed to take into account evidence that was relevant when considering the issue of dishonesty and the correct burden and standard of proof. At [36], the judge made reference to the claim made on behalf of the appellant that his former accountants were negligent or incompetent in relation to his affairs. The judge when considering that submission stated "this is not necessarily the case as a matter of course. If the appellant had provided all his business records to Shabester it is difficult to see how they could have failed to declared all of the self-employed income." However, as Mr Gajjar submits, the bundle provides documentary evidence to demonstrate strike of actions by the companies register which led to their eventual striking off in 2015. In support of the appellant's claim concerning their conduct, reference was made in the documentary evidence before the FtT to the PAYE income for 2010/11. Having been provided with the P60's relevant to the tax year, the income was £11,794 (taken from the three documents) when they in fact declared £7093 to HMRC (see the document at C9). This was evidence in support of the appellant's claim concerning his accountants which had not been taken into account. As Mr Gajjar submits, no combination of the three P60's could have led to the figure of £7093 is declared in the documents and thus this supported the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant as to the quality of the calculations. The submission was important because under declaring PAYE would not have put the appellant in any position to gain any advantage when tax was already paid at source.

47.          Furthermore in relation to those grounds, in assessing the allegations, it was necessary to look at the wider picture overall. Relevant to the issues in this case was that the appellant had overpaid tax to HMRC in the years 2013/2014 and 2015/2016. The figures given for those overpayments in the documents were figures of £1888.40 (2013/14) and £405.60 (2015 - 2016) and were significant overpayments. There were also sums of money in relation to corporation tax in behalf of the company for which he was the sole director. The figures given by counsel from the documents are £709.80, £54.76, £1014, £2523.20, £880.15, 542.49.

48.          In addition to the evidence that had been overlooked, Mr Gajjar pointed to the letter from the HMRC. Whilst the judge at [39] concluded that HMRC by not imposing a penalty appellant did not mean that he had not acted dishonestly. The difficulty with that finding is that no reference was made to the letter provided by HMRC which assessed the appellant's conduct and considered it to constitute a "failure to take reasonable care" and therefore no penalty was levied. In the light of the guidance given in Balajigari at [73 - 74] the letter and its contents were highly relevant to the issues under consideration.

49.          Other evidence that was relevant was the failure to consider the appellant's history in subsequent years. No discrepancies were indicated in the documents which related to his earnings from self-employment.

50.          Whilst I have set out above the errors of law set out in the grounds 2-6, as Mr Gajjar has identified, given the concession as to ground 1, this effectively disposes of the other grounds in any event because ground 1 goes to the heart of whether the issue of dishonesty was properly raised.

51.          Ground 1 concerns the submission made to the Tribunal that the appellant had no case to answer as there had been no allegation of dishonesty in the decision letter with the effect that paragraph 322 (5) of the rules has no effect.

52.          Mr Diwnycz accepted that the decision letter and its terms do not properly raise the issue of dishonesty.

53.          The language of the decision letter makes no clear reference to the appellant being dishonest in his tax affairs. Reference in the decision letter refers to the delay in correcting his declarations to indicate "you had little intention of correcting the errors promptly and as such so little respect for UK tax laws." Reference is made to "it would not be considered a credible explanation" and when expressly dealing with paragraph 322 (5) the decision letters states "the Secretary of State considers it will be undesirable for you to remain in the United Kingdom in light of your character and conduct. She satisfied that you have misrepresented your earnings at various times...". There is also reference to the appellant as the income raised to an application as being "clearly inflated".

54.          In order for paragraph 322 (5) to apply, dishonesty is a prerequisite. This set out at paragraphs [34-[35] of Balajigari :

"34. As to the first stage, Mr Biggs submitted that there are three limbs to the analysis. There must be: (i) reliable evidence of (ii) sufficiently reprehensible conduct; and (iii) an assessment, taking proper account of all relevant circumstances known about the applicant at the date of decision, of whether his or her presence in the UK is undesirable (this should include evidence of positive features of their character). Again, that seems to us a correct and helpful analysis of the exercise required at the first stage, but it will be useful to say something more about the elements in it, especially as they apply to an earnings discrepancy case.

35. As to the first two limbs, Mr Biggs' position was that an earnings discrepancy case could constitute sufficiently reprehensible conduct for the purpose of paragraph 322 (5) if but only if the discrepancy was the result of dishonesty on the part of the applicant. That was not disputed on behalf of the Secretary of State, and in our view it is correct. The provision of inaccurate earnings figures either to HMRC or to the Home Office in support of an application for leave under Part 6A as a result of mere carelessness or ignorance or poor advice cannot constitute conduct rendering it undesirable for the applicant to remain in the UK. Errors so caused are, however regrettable, "genuine" or "innocent" in the sense that they are honest, and do not meet the necessary threshold. This is the approach already taken by the UT: see R (Samant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/6546/2016, judgment of 26 April 2017), at para. 10, per Collins J, and R (Shahbaz Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKUT 384 (IAC), at paras. 32-37, per Martin Spencer J (we shall have to return to Shahbaz Khan in more detail below).

55.          At paragraphs 211- 212 of Balajigari, the Court of Appeal made reference to the decision letter under challenge and that they did not use language relevant to indicate dishonesty as being alleged but rather a "lesser threshold" which was the wrong test and fell short of a finding of dishonesty. Those paragraphs read as follows:

"211. We are, however, very troubled by the terms of the Reasons given for both decisions. In neither set of Reasons does the Secretary of State in terms that he has found the discrepancies to be the result of dishonesty. Instead, the Reasons for the administrative review decision repeatedly use language which suggests a lesser threshold. In the first of the passages quoted at para. 201 above they refer to "undesirable conduct", which is plainly the wrong test; the succeeding passages are couched in terms of the Secretary of State's "doubt" and "concerns"; and the final passage quoted "deems" (which is an odd word in this context) Mr Albert's conduct to have been "questionable", which is certainly short of a finding of dishonesty.

212. We fully acknowledge that some of the other passages in both sets of Reasons would appear clearly to imply a finding of dishonesty - specifically, the rejection of the explanation of "genuine error" and the observations to the effect that Mr Albert had a motive to submit "false" figures - and we have considered anxiously whether the correct view, reading the Reasons as a whole, is that it is sufficiently clear that the Secretary of State did find dishonesty and that the passages suggesting otherwise simply represent loose language: we have to say that these letters generally are poorly drafted. We have come to the conclusion, however, that it is at least seriously arguable that there was a substantive misdirection here. If, as we have held above, paragraph 322 (5) can only be relied on by the Secretary of State where he has made a positive finding of dishonesty, we regard it as important that it be quite clear that such a finding has indeed been made: there may perhaps be cases where that is indeed clear even if the words "dishonest" or "deceit" are not actually used, but the benefit of any doubt must go to the applicant. Quite apart from anything else, using the right language ensures that caseworkers face up to the seriousness of the finding that they are making. In our view there is a real doubt here about whether the caseworkers understood what they had to find."

56.          When applied to the decision letter in this appeal, the submissions made by Mr Gajjar which were conceded on behalf of the respondent, were that the language used was similar to that in the decision letters in the decision of Balajigari and whilst the language might be said to imply a finding of dishonesty, and reference being made to "genuine error", that there was a misdirection and no positive finding of dishonesty was made. This was a decision made in the context of judicial review proceedings. I further note in this regard that the decision in Balajigari was handed down on 16 April 2019 and whilst that was after the decision letter in this appeal, no revised or amended decision letter has been served, even when the appeal had been before the FtT on two previous occasions.

57.          As there is no positive allegation of dishonesty made in relation to the appellant, it follows that there was no case for the appellant to answer and thus it was not necessary to provide any innocent explanation.

58.          For those reasons and as the parties agree, the decision of the FtTJ did involve the making of an error on a point of law and the decision should be set aside.

59.          There is no dispute between the parties that the appellant met the requirements of paragraph 276B and that the only issues that were in dispute relate to the issue of conduct which has now been resolved as set out above. As he meets the requirements of the Immigration Rules pertaining to his human rights application, his human rights appeal is allowed (applying TZ (Pakistan) [2018] EWCA Civ 1109.

60.          The appeal is remade as follows; the appeal is allowed on Article 8 grounds.

 

Notice of Decision.

61.          The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law and therefore the decision is set aside. It is remade as follows: the appeal is allowed on Article 8 grounds.

 

 

Signed Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds

 

Dated 30 April 2021

 

 

NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL RIGHTS

1. A person seeking permission to appeal against this decision must make a written application to the Upper Tribunal. Any such application must be received by the Upper Tribunal within the appropriate period after this decision was sent to the person making the application. The appropriate period varies, as follows, according to the location of the individual and the way in which the Upper Tribunal's decision was sent:

2. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is in the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, and is not in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 12 working days (10 working days if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

3. Where the person making the application is in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 7 working days (5 working days if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

4. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is outside the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, the appropriate period is 38 days (10 working days if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

5. A "working day" means any day except a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or a bank holiday.

6. The date when the decision is "sent' is that appearing on the covering letter or covering email.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2021/HU055762018.html