Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-11-03, UI-2023-003967
| Appeal Number | UI-2023-003967 |
| Hearing Date | 24 October 2023 |
| Date | 03 November 2023 |
| Published date | 20 November 2023 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
Appeal Number: UI-2023-003967 (HU/58982/2022)
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2023-003967
|
|
|
First-tier Tribunal Nos: HU/58982/2022 LH/01586/2023 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
3rd November 2023
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHEPHERD
Between
Raja Imran Imtiaz
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Stedman, counsel, (instructed by Law Lane Solicitors)
For the Respondents: Ms Ahmed, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 24 October 2023
DECISION AND REASONS
Background
-
This matter concerns an appeal against the Respondent’s decision letter of 10 November 2022, refusing the Appellant’s application made on 5 January 2022.
-
The Appellant applied for leave to remain on the basis of his private life, relying mainly on the length of time he had been in the UK, amounting to over 15 years, and the ties developed during this time.
-
The Respondent refused the Appellant’s claim by letter dated 10 November 2022 (“the Refusal Letter”). This set out the Appellant’s immigration history and stated that the application had been considered with reference to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and under Paragraph 276ADE of the UK Immigration Rules. The Refusal Letter did not accept that the Appellant would face significant obstacles to re-integrating into life in Pakistan; it considered support from family in the UK could continue on return, the Appellant’s claimed medical conditions were not life-threatening and could be treated in Pakistan and he had not shown that on return he would be homeless or destitute.
-
The Appellant appealed the refusal decision.
-
His appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Thorne (“the Judge”) at Taylor House (by CVP) on 21 July 2023. The Judge subsequently dismissed the appeal in his decision dated 5 August 2023.
-
The Appellant applied for permission to appeal to this Tribunal on five grounds. Grounds 1-4 assert that the Judge reached irrational conclusions concerning:
-
the Appellant’s ability to speak English
-
whether the Appellant would be supported and accommodated in the UK
-
whether the Appellant could utilise his family in the UK to obtain employment in Pakistan
-
the Appellant’s length of residence in the UK.
-
-
Gound 5 asserts that the Judge failed to consider several relevant factors, being the Appellant’s lack of family ties in Pakistan, the impact of removal on his mental health, the lack of gluten-free and meat-free foods in Pakistan and the age of the Appellant and related struggle he would face concerning employment.
-
Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Monaghan on 18 September 2023, stating:
“1. The application is in time.
2. The Judge has arguably made irrational findings in relation to the Appellant’s ability to speak English and whether he can be adequately supported and accommodated.
3. In relation to the ability to speak English, the Judge fails to mention that the Appellant gave evidence in English during the Hearing and the weight or otherwise he placed on that factor in reaching his conclusion that the evidence does not establish that the Appellant can speak English.
4. In relation to adequate support and accommodation, the Judge’s findings are arguable contradictory and/ or unclear. At paragraph 32(iv) on the one hand the Judge finds that the evidence does establish that the Appellant can be adequately supported and accommodated in the United Kingdom. In the same subparagraph the Judge goes on to note that he has seen no adequate documentary evidence that he can (be adequately supported and accommodated).
5. I find that these arguable errors are material as they may affect the proportionality balancing exercise which was carried out by the Judge.
6. The other grounds whilst less cogent remain arguable”.
-
The Respondent filed a rule 24 response opposing the grounds of appeal and asserting that: the Judge’s approach was correct, he was entitled to make the findings that he did and some of the grounds amount to mere disagreement.
The Hearing
-
The matter came before me for hearing on 24 October 2023 at Field House.
-
Ms Ahmed attended for the Respondent and Mr Stedman attended for the Appellant.
-
Mr Stedman sought to raise a point not made explicit in the grounds, namely that there was a failure on the part of the Judge to consider family life, despite family life been raised in paragraphs 17 and 20 of the grounds of appeal before him. Mr Stedman said the Judge’s findings are all confined to a consideration of private life and there is no clear finding on whether family life in the UK exists. He said it was clear from the grounds and evidence before the Judge that this was a family life case because:
-
the Appellant’s evidence was that his only family are in the UK, being a brother, aunt, uncles and cousins, and his parents are deceased;
-
he has been living in is aunt’s household for 12 years; and
-
they have been supporting him financially.
-
-
Mr Stedman said the Judge was aware of the issue which is shown by his description of the oral evidence at [11] of the decision. He said it is a “Robinson obvious” point as any judge picking up this case and scanning it would say it is a family/private life case due to the weight of the evidence; it appears the Judge found article 8 is engaged but only in relation to private life and he does not go on to assess family life in terms of proportionality; this is an error which is material to the outcome.
-
I asked Mr Stedman whether there was any evidence of the Appellant having spoken English at the hearing, given that the decision records that he used an Urdu interpreter. Mr Stedman could not point me to any further evidence of the hearing itself; a transcript had not been obtained. He relied instead on the fact that the Appellant’s witness statement was in English with no sign of translation and it being mentioned in the skeleton argument.
-
Mr Stedman took me through the remaining grounds. I asked, in relation to ground 5, what the evidence was before the Judge of the Appellant having poor mental health. Mr Stedman said he did not draft the grounds and there were parts which he did not rely on, being the mental health point, the ability to find gluten-free and meat-free food and the Appellant struggling to find employment, all being factors contained within ground 5.
-
In response, Ms Ahmed confirmed she did not oppose the grounds being amended to include family life, although she submitted that there was no error and that if there was, it was not material. She said it was not an issue explicitly raised before the Judge; paragraph 7 of the skeleton argument confirmed the issues to be whether there were significant obstacles and/or exceptional circumstances and the Respondent’s review addressed those points. She relied on TC (PS compliance - “issues-based” reasoning) Zimbabwe [2023] UKUT 00164 (IAC), headnotes 1 and 2 stating:
“1. Practice Statement No 1 of 2022 (‘the PS’) emphasises the requirement on the part of both parties in the FTT to identify the issues in dispute and to focus on addressing the evidence and law relevant to those issues in a particularised yet concise manner. This is consistent with one of the main objectives of reform and a modern application of the overriding objective pursuant to rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (FTT)(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. It ensures that there is an efficient and effective hearing, proportionate to the real issues in dispute.
2. A PS-compliant and focussed appeal skeleton argument (‘ASA’) often leads to a more focussed review, and in turn to a focussed and structured FTT decision on the issues in dispute. Reviews are pivotal to reform in the FTT. The PS makes it clear that they must be meaningful and pro-forma or standardised responses will be rejected. They provide the respondent with an important opportunity to review the relevant up to date evidence associated with the principal important controversial issues. It is to be expected that the FTT will be astute to ensure that the parties comply with the mandatory requirements of the PS, including the substantive contents of ASAs and reviews.
-
She said, notwithstanding that family life may have been raised in the grounds before the Judge, this was only by way of fleeting mention, the Appellant did not advance his case on family life and the issues were narrowed down in the skeleton argument, which is reflected in the Judge’s decision at[18] and [30]. She also relied on Lata (FtT: principal controversial issues) [2023] UKUT 00163 (IAC) which made similar points to TC and stated in the headnotes:
“7. Unless a point was one which was Robinson obvious, a judge's decision cannot be alleged to contain an error of law on the basis that a judge failed to take account of a point that was never raised for their consideration as an issue in an appeal....
To continue reading
Request your trial