R ZU (Pakistan) and Others v Entry Clearance Officer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Hallett |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 966 |
| Date | 22 June 2012 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2012/0759 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 966
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
[Appeal Nos: OA/09430/2009, OA/09419/2009, OA/09440/2009 OA/09448/2009]
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Hallett D.B.E
Case No: C5/2012/0759
Mr Danny Bazini (instructed by Messrs Lawrence Lupin) attended Pro Bono on behalf of the Applicants
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
This is an entry clearance application with a chequered history. Mr Bazini has represented the applicants before me pro bono and I am indebted to him for stepping into the breach when I refused an application for the matter to be taken out of the list for today.
The applicants are four of the six children of Mr A and Miss B. Mr A fled to the United Kingdom and was granted, eventually, refugee status in May 2006. Ms B, his wife, and their youngest child, S, joined him. The applicants are all adults and at the time of their application were aged 27, 23, 22 and 20. S was 12. They applied to join their parents and S. The Entry Clearance Officer declined their application.
For present purposes I can limit myself to part of the story. The matter was considered by Immigration Judge Mailer and that decision was appealed to the Upper Tribunal. Mr Bazini has focused on what he claims was an error of law on the part of Immigration Judge Mailer and subsequently on the part of the Upper Tribunal. He asserted that the Upper Tribunal must consider the question of whether an error of law has occurred on the basis of the material before the Immigration Judge. The Upper Tribunal must not take into account on new information provided to it. In this case, Mr Bazini said this principle is important because the Upper Tribunal appears to have taken into account the fact that S was reaching his majority at the time the decision was taken, whereas S was only 13 or 14 at the relevant time.
Mr Bazini very respectfully also criticised Sir Richard Buxton, who refused permission to appeal on the papers because he had referred to the fact that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Muhammad Jalal Junied) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...obtaining and providing documents in the specified form. For example, in the case of Alam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 966, (a case involving Student Migrants), it was stated by Sullivan LJ at paragraph 35, after he had referred to the relevant rules and pol......