BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> AA076152013 [2014] UKAITUR AA076152013 (20 January 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/AA076152013.html Cite as: [2014] UKAITUR AA076152013, [2014] UKAITUR AA76152013 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal no: AA 07615-13
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision signed: 17.01.2014 | |
on 17.01.2014 | sent out: 20.01.2014 |
Before:
Upper Tribunal Judge
John FREEMAN
Between:
Naeem SHAHZAD
appellant
and
respondent
Representation:
For the appellant: Daniel Coleman (counsel instructed by Dent Abrams)
For the respondent: Mr Nigel Bramble
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
This is an appeal, by the , against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Anne-Marie Tootell), sitting at Hatton Cross on 11 September 2013, to an appeal by a citizen of Pakistan, born 6 December 1984, to the extent of directing the Home Office to reconsider his application under the ‘legacy’ policy.
2. Permission to appeal was given on the basis that AZ (Asylum- legacy cases) Afghanistan [2013] UKUT 270 (IAC) should have led the judge to a different result. Both sides should have referred her to this decision, but apparently neither did. However, Mr Bramble conceded before me that, even if the judge had been referred to it, she would have been entitled to distinguish it, on the basis that the decision under appeal in this case was not a fresh immigration decision, but one under the ‘legacy’ policy, which in her view had not been properly considered. So he withdrew the Home Office appeal, and the judge’s decision stands.
Home Office appeal withdrawn
(a judge of the Upper Tribunal)