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 >> DA001382014 [2015] UKAITUR DA001382014 (11 February 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2015/DA001382014.html Cite as: [2015] UKAITUR DA001382014, [2015] UKAITUR DA1382014 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00138/2014
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
| Heard at Glasgow | Determination issued |
| on 10 February 2015 | On 11 February 2015 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN
Between
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and
MOHIT GOGNA
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs M O’Brien, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr S F Winter, Advocate, instructed by Maguire, Solicitors
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The parties are referred to in the rest of this determination as they were in the First-tier Tribunal.
2. The respondent appeals against a determination by a panel comprising First-tier Tribunal Judge J C Grant-Hutchison and Dr C J Winstanley, allowing the appellant’s appeal against deportation to India.
3. The grounds are directed against the finding in terms of paragraph 399A(a) of the Immigration Rules that the appellant had “no ties” with India. Mrs O’Brien submitted that the panel misconstrued that test and strayed into deciding the case on the relative strength of ties with the UK and with India, which was irrelevant.
4. On a strict and literal interpretation of the term “no ties” the respondent would have a point. However, the authority to apply was Ogundimu [2013] UKUT 60, which the panel cited at paragraph 40. In light of that case the issue whether the appellant had no ties with India required “a rounded assessment of the facts”. That is the exercise in which the panel engaged, reaching a conclusion open to it for the reasons given.
5. The Rules have been amended since this case was decided, and the current test would be whether there were very significant obstacles to the appellant’s integration in India. He succeeded on a finely balanced issue in these proceedings. He should not take that to mean that deportation may not be a possibility in the future, if he continues his criminal offending.
6. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.
7. No anonymity direction has been requested or made.
12 February 2015
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman
