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 >> HU116282015 [2018] UKAITUR HU116282015 (8 January 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/HU116282015.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR HU116282015 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/11628/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 8 December 2017 |
On 8 January 2018 |
|
|
|
Before
DR H H STOREY
JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
Between
miss chenchira mangkhalakun
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr I Kumi, Counsel instructed by Rehoboth Law
For the Respondent: Ms Z Ahmad, Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. In a decision sent on 27 February 2017 First-tier Tribunal Judge Callow dismissed the appeal of the appellant, a citizen of Thailand, against a decision made by the respondent on 10 November 2015 refusing leave to remain.
2. It is unnecessary for me to set out the grounds of appeal in any detail because Ms Ahmad accepts that the judge erred in failing to take into account the fact that the appellant is the parent of a British citizen child.
3. In light of this failure on the part of the judge I set aside his decision for material error of law. I consider I am in a position to re-make the decision without further ado.
4. I re-make the decision by allowing the appellant's appeal. Applying the guidance given in SF and Others [2017] UKUT 120 (IAC) I am satisfied that the appellant falls within the scope of S.117B(6) of the NIAA 2002 by virtue of being the parent of a British citizen child. As regards reasonableness, it is the respondent's own policy that save in cases featuring criminality or serious immigration misconduct it would not be reasonable to expect a British citizen child to leave the UK in order to be with a parent. There is no issue of criminality in this case. Whilst the appellant came to the UK in August 2014 as a visitor and overstayed, it is not suggested that her migration history is of such an order as to take her outwith the scope of the Home Office policy. Accordingly, because the appellant falls within the scope of the policy, there is no public interest in her being required to leave the UK. Her appeal succeeds on Article 8 grounds.
No anonymity direction is made.
Signed Date:5 January 2018
Dr H H Storey
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
