Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2025-04-25, UI-2023-000405

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2023-000405

First-tier Tribunal No: HU/58101/2021
IA/17750/2021

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 25 April 2025


Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LINDSLEY


Between
FARHAN SULTAN ALAM FARIDI
(ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE)
Appellant
and


SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr P Nath, of Counsel, instructed by Archbold Solicitors Ltd
For the Respondent: Ms N Kerr, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 15 April 2025


DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on 19th April 1983. He came to the UK in January 2011 with entry clearance as a student. He had leave in this capacity until 2015, however on 13th August 2014 his leave was curtailed to expire in October 2014 because the sponsorship licence of the British Institute of Technology & E-commerce was revoked. He made an application to remain as a student at another college, Futures College, with a new CAS but while his application was pending that college’s licence was revoked and he was given 60 days to find a new college on 16th April 2015. No further CAS was obtained and his application was refused. The decision was appealed but that appeal was dismissed. The appellant became appeal rights exhausted on 5th December 2016. The appellant contends that he was granted temporary admission and bail at this point but the position of the respondent is that she has no record of this.
2. On 24th October 2016 the appellant applied to remain as a dependent family member of an EEA citizen, namely Kashif Jamil, an Italian citizen and paternal first cousin of the appellant. This application was refused on 3rd June 2017 with no right of appeal. A judicial review was lodged but then withdrawn on the advice of solicitors who made some s.120 submissions / human rights claim submissions dated 17th July 2018. Further human rights and long residence representations dated 12th June 2021 were refused in a decision of the respondent dated 8th December 2021. The appellant’s appeal against this decision was allowed by a First-tier Tribunal Judge in a decision promulgated on 29th December 2022 on Article 8 ECHR grounds because it was found that the appellant had suffered a gross injustice following Sala [2016] UKUT 411 because he was denied an appeal against the refusal of his EEA application, and in this context it was found that he was entitled to be placed in a similar position to that he would have been if he had not been denied this remedy.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge GA Black found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law for the reasons set out in her decision appended at Annex A to this decision.
4. The matter now comes before me to remake the appeal.
Evidence & Submissions – Remaking
5. In short summary the written and oral evidence of the appellant is as follows. He wishes to apply to remain in the UK because he has been in the UK for fourteen years. He says he has always tried to make in-time applications. His studies were frustrated by the revocation of the licences of his two colleges, and at the point in 2015 when he was given a further 60 days to find another college he had been unable to obtain a further CAS. This caused him to lose money, and, he argues, he was let down by the Home Office who revoked the licences and by his legal representatives who were negligent in respect of the judicial review of his EEA refusal as a family member and by telling him not to attend his appeal hearing in 2016. The appellant says that he has no criminal record and contributes in communal and cultural activities in the UK and so is a positive contributor to the community in the UK. He says that he has lost connections with friends and family in Pakistan, and made many British citizen friends who support his application. He said that his witnesses had not attended the Upper Tribunal as his solicitors had not told him they should attend to give oral evidence. The appellant explained that his brother went to live in Canada in 2003 and his parents joined his brother in 2017, he therefore only has distant cousins in Pakistan. He says that these people would not assist him to reintegrate, and that he would not be able to use his MBA because he obtained it in 2013 and has therefore not used this knowledge for a period of twelve years, and since he entered the UK he has not been able to do work appropriate to his qualifications whilst in the UK so he has no relevant/useful work experience. He accepted however that he is able to speak both English (the language in which he gave evidence) and Urdu.
6. The documentary evidence in support of his claim shows that he has an MBA from the University of Wales dated 1st May 2013. In addition he has submitted letters in support confirming that the applicant is well regarded (kind, respectable, hardworking and caring) and enjoys private life ties with the five writers, namely Adnan Niaz, Manel Bouchou Niaz, Syed Nisar Hussain Shah, Imran Saad Qureshi and Fayyaz Ahmed.
7. The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed, and relied upon the reasons for refusal letter of December 2021, the review of July 2022, the skeleton argument from the error of law hearing dated 22nd May 2023, and oral submissions from Ms Kerr.
8. It is argued that the appellant cannot succeed in his Article 8 ECHR appeal by relying upon Immigration Rule 276B as he became appeal rights...