United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: HU/02296/2017

HU/02301/2017

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11 July 2018	On 17 September 2018

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN

 

 

Between

 

M O (FIRST appellant)

B O O (SECOND appellant)

(anonymity direction made)

Appellants

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

 

Respondent

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellants: Ms M Crowley, Legal Representative instructed by Cardinal Hume Centre

For the Respondent: Mr D Clarke, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1. This is the appeal of the first appellant, [MO], and her daughter against the decision of the First-tier Judge promulgated on 11 August 2017 refusing applications for leave to remain on human rights grounds. The judge dismissed the appeal.

2. Permission to appeal to challenge that decision was granted by Judge Plimmer on the basis that the judge had failed to give proper consideration to the guidance in MA (Pakistan) concerning a child who as in this case has resided in the United Kingdom for more than seven years, and I think in fact it was more than eight years that [BOO] had been in the United Kingdom by the time of the appeal.

 

3. Judge Plimmer drew attention to the fact that the guidance in MA (Pakistan) refers to the need to attach significant weight to the child's residence when considering her best interests and to that could be added the point from the quotation from the relevant paragraph in MA in the grounds that it establishes the seven year point as a starting point and stating that leave should be granted unless there are powerful reasons to the contrary. The judge had not identified any such reasons.

 

4. There is a particular development in this case in that [BOO] has now been granted British citizenship.

 

5. Mr Clarke, very fairly on behalf of the respondent, invites me to find that there is a material error of law in the decision, which I do on the basis of the failure to give proper consideration to the guidance in MA and to re-make the decision, which I do on the basis that it can be done very simply and straightforwardly that there are no powerful reasons to the contrary that have been identified to a grant of leave in this case where the child in question has been in the United Kingdom I think for if not nine years then getting on for nine years, the even more powerful point in many ways that she has been granted British citizenship and therefore for the decision of the judge dismissing the appeals is substituted a decision allowing them.

 

 

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

 

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellants are granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify them or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellants and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

 

 

 

Signed Date

 

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen