Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2016-07-15, IA/10824/2015 & IA/10826/2015
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/10824/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 17th June 2016
On 15th July 2016
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS
miss emmanuella naa amerley gyapong (first appellant)
Mr daniel nii amartey gyapong (second appellant)
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellants: Mr R Sharma, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr K Norton, Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellants are citizens of Ghana born respectively on 17th June 1997 and 6th June 1999. They are brother and sister. The Appellants' immigration history is set out in detail in the decision and reasons of Judge Davies at paragraphs 2 to 5. I have given due and full consideration to these paragraphs.
2. On 19th November 2014 the Appellants had applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This was despite the fact that their visa valid for six months from 14th October 2013 to 14th April 2014 had expired. Their claim was based under paragraph 298 of the Immigration Rules, namely that they sought indefinite leave to remain as the child of a parent, parents or a relative present and settled or being admitted for settlement in the United Kingdom. Those applications were refused by Notices of Refusal dated 4th March 2015.
3. The Appellants appealed and the appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal M Davies sitting at Hatton Cross on 19th October 2015. In a decision and reasons promulgated on 12th November 2015 the Appellants' appeals were dismissed under the Immigration Rules and on human rights grounds.
4. On 26th November 2015 Grounds of Appeal were lodged to the Upper Tribunal. On 17th May 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Shimmin granted permission to appeal. Judge Shimmin noted that the grounds requesting permission to appeal argued that the judge had erred in:
(1) relying on evidence in the form of a witness statement admitted after the hearing which was not put to the Appellants or the witness, and
(2) the approach of the judge to the funds available to the Appellants.
Judge Shimmin considered that both grounds constituted material errors of law and that it was arguable that the failure of the judge to let the Appellant or witness answer a deficiency in the witness statement was unfair and that the judge's consideration of the funds available to the Appellant was also an error.
5. On 26th May 2016 the Secretary of State responded to the Grounds of Appeal. In summary the Rule 24 response submitted that the judge directed himself appropriately and that the evidence submitted posthearing was submitted by the Appellants themselves and that it had always been within the Appellants' knowledge that the Respondent disputed there was sole responsibility for the Appellants by their father and as such they had had every opportunity since the refusal letter to adduce the evidence to support their case or to provide an explanation when submitting the requested letter. In any event the Rule 24 reply contended that even if it were found to be in error to have referred to the witness statement, it was contended that the error would not be material and that it is noted that the witness statement formed a small part of a significant number of...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL