Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2019-04-15, HU/08078/2018
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 15 April 2019 |
| Published date | 05 June 2019 |
| Hearing Date | 06 March 2019 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Status | Unreported |
| Appeal Number | HU/08078/2018 |
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/08078/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Bradford Phoenix House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6th March 2019
On 15th April 2019
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JUSS
Between
Sammar [A]
(ANONYMITY direction not made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr R O'Ryan (Counsel), Prolegis Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Mrs R Petersen (Senior HOPO)
DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge A M Buchanan, promulgated on 23rd October 2018, following the hearing at North Shields on 20th August 2018. In the determination, the judge allowed the appeal of the Appellant, whereupon the Respondent Secretary of State, subsequently applied for, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and thus the matters comes before me.
The Appellant
2. The Appellant is a male, a citizen of Pakistan, and was born on 19th December 1989. He appealed against the decision of the Respondent refusing his application for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of his family life with his wife, [RK], whom he had married in Pakistan on 20th September 2014. The decision appealed against is dated 15th March 2018.
The Appellant's Claim
3. The Appellant's claim is that, after marrying his wife on 20th September 2014 in Pakistan, he came to the UK on 11th June 2015. He and his wife have had difficulty conceiving a child. This has caused stress in their relationship. Initially the two of them lived with his wife's parents. They moved to their own home, however, in August 2016. The Appellant had an operation in March 2017 as part of fertility treatment, but a child has not been conceived.
4. One evening, the Appellant and his wife were invited to the home of her parents to discuss the situation. This was in May 2017. When they arrived the Appellant's wife's brother humiliated the Appellant. He told his sister (the Appellant's wife) that she should leave the Appellant and remarry. The Appellant's brother in law forced the Appellant onto a couch, and the brother-in-law's wife called the police. The Appellant was arrested. He was taken to the police station. He spent the night in a cell. He was asked by the police to accept a caution rather than face a criminal conviction, and a condition of the caution was that he should attend anger management courses at Carlisle Business Centre.
5. The Appellant was told that once he had completed the course, the caution would be complete, although it would remain on his record, but not affect his immigration case. The Appellant and his wife have lived together since the incident and it has brought them closer together. However, when the Appellant made his application for leave to remain, he was asked if he had any criminal convictions and he replied that he did not. Only when the application was refused, did he find out that the caution remained effective. He has no other convictions or cautions. The Appellant even then submitted a complaint to the West Yorkshire Police on 25th June 2018 about the circumstances of the caution. The complaint was rejected.
The Judge's Findings
6. At the hearing before Judge Buchanan, the Appellant's wife, [RK], gave evidence to say that the caution on 22nd May 2017 was allegedly for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial