Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-04-15, HU/08635/2017

 
FREE EXCERPT


Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/08635/2017


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10 APRIL 2019
On 15 APRIL 2019



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE


Between

EA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Burrett
For the Respondent: Mrs Pettersen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. By a decision promulgated on 6 February 2019, I found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law such that its decision fell to be set aside:
"1. I shall refer to the appellant as the respondent and the respondent as the appellant (as they appeared respectively before the First-tier Tribunal). The appellant was born in 1983 and is a male citizen of Turkey. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Spencer) against the decision of the respondent dated 27 July 2017 to refuse his Article 8 human rights claim. The appellant had been served with a deportation order on 30 November 2016. He is married to a British citizen and the couple have two children, E J who was born in 2009 and A G who was born in 2014. The appellant is not the biological father of E J but is the biological father of A G. The appellant's wife, A G and the E J are British citizens. The First-tier Tribunal in a decision promulgated on 12 December 2017, allowed the appeal. The Secretary of State now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. The appeal before the First-tier Tribunal turned on whether the deportation of the appellant would have unduly harsh consequences for his wife and the children. I note that the hearing before the Upper Tribunal took place very shortly before the handing down of the judgment of the Supreme Court in KO (Nigeria) [2018] UKSC 53. I find that the judge's analysis is inadequate. The judge refers in detail to ZH (Tanzania) [2011] 2 AC 166) at [29]. At [30 - 31], the judge found that it would not be appropriate or reasonable for the children to relocate to Turkey. He found that there would be "linguistic disruption (sic) for both children and social disruption for the elder child." He considered that there would be a "loss of educational opportunities that are available to the children in the UK" and stated that there was "no evidence ? that there is suitable education facility for the child in Turkey." It is not entirely clear what the judge means by that last sentence. The judge also found [31] that the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL