FB (Removal Directions)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Richard Chalkley |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] UKIAT 104 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Date | 28 October 2003 |
[2003] UKIAT 104
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Mr Richard Chalkley (Chairman)
Mr C Thursby
Mr D Medhurst, Counsel, instructed by Aaronson & Co, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr Colin Flynn, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer, appeared on behalf of the respondent.
FB (Removal Directions — Section 69(1) Appeal) Lebanon
The appellant appeals with leave of the Tribunal against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr Mark Davies, who in a determination promulgated on 16 April 2003, following a hearing at Leeds on 28 March 2003, dismissed his appeal against the decision of the respondent taken on 6 December 2002 to refuse leave to enter after refusing asylum. His appeal was therefore under Section 69(1) of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act.
The appellant is an ethnic Palestinian born on 14 May, 1956 in Lebanon who, until his arrival in the United Kingdom on 8 October 2002, had, since 1976, lived in the United Arab Emirates. He was granted a United Kingdom visit visa on 4 June 2002 in Abu Dhabi. The visa was for six months and expired on 4 December 2002. In granting leave, the Vice President said:
“The only issue worthy of merit is returnability to the UAE, whether at the date of the Adjudicator's determination or now, in view of the expiry of his residence permit. Therefore the grant of leave is limited to grounds 1.3 and 1.4.”
Ground 1, paragraph 3, said:
“The Adjudicator erred at paragraph 53 in finding that the appellant and his family can return to the UAE. At Annex E5 of the Home Office bundle [the appellant's] period of residence is recorded as expiring on 20/6/03 however [the appellant] stated in evidence that his leave would in fact expire six months from departure from the UAE. This is confirmed in the small print on the travel document at E5 which states “residence permit becomes invalid if bearer resides outside the UAE for more than six months”. The six month period expired on the date of the determination, i.e. 7/4/93, [the appellant] having left on 7/10/03 (E5 stamp unclear but see E4 and fact that UK port interview took place on 8/10/02). Therefore at the time of the Adjudicator's decision [the appellant] had no right of residence in the UAE. [The appellant's] residence was granted purely for work purposes, he was not allowed to own property in UAE and would not be able to reside there without an existing job, interview at D6q.32–34 and determination paragraph 37.”
Ground 1, paragraph 4, said:
“In the circumstances the removal directions to UAE were ineffective at the date of the determination. [The appellant] is currently in no sense a UAE national or resident and as such removal there would not be in accordance with the law. [The appellant] was entitled to have the issue of nationality properly decided by the Adjudicator, see Agatha Smith00/TH/02130) at para 55.”
In addressing us, Mr Medhurst suggested that the Adjudicator failed to make a finding that the appellant had been habitually resident in the United Arab Emirates but for the reasons stated in the grounds of appeal, this appellant will not be re-admitted to the United Arab Emirates since his residence permit has now expired and he no longer has a job there. He will not, therefore, be entitled to apply for a fresh residence permit.
The Tribunal pointed out to Mr Medhurst that it had been the appellant's claim, which was unchallenged by the respondent, that the appellant had lived in Lebanon since 1976 when he had embarked from the United Arab Emirates to the United Kingdom. It appeared to the Tribunal that there was power in law to remove the appellant to the UAE and the fact that he may not be admitted to the UAE was an administrative difficulty, but not one which rendered the removal directions unlawful. Mr Medhurst responded by suggesting that since the Adjudicator had failed to make a finding that the appellant was stateless the determination was defective. The appellant's former residence permit had expired. He had been granted a residence permit because he was working in the UAE but no longer had a job there and would not be re-admitted.
Mr Flynn reminded us that this was an appeal under Section 69(1) of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act....
To continue reading
Request your trial