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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)                                   Appeal Number: HU/04244/2018

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 5 th July 2019	On 12 th July 2019

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

and

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MANDALIA

 

 

Between

 

MR MD RASHADUL HASSAN RAZU

(anonymity direction NOT MADE)

Appellant

and

 

SECRETARY OF STATE for the home department

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant:          Mr M Malik, Kuddus Solicitors

For the Respondent:      Ms A Everett, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

1.              The appellant is a national of Bangladesh. He arrived in the UK in August 2006 as a student with leave to enter until 31 ^st October 2009.  He was granted further leave to remain as a student until 29 ^th February 2012.  On 27 ^th August 2011, the appellant was married to an EEA national in a proxy marriage in Ghana, and on 29 ^th August 2012 he was granted an EEA Residence Card.  The appellant separated from his wife in March 2015.  On 22 ^nd June 2017 he made an application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.  The application was refused by the respondent for the reasons set out in a decision dated 25 ^th January 2018.  The appellantÕs appeal against that decision was dismissed by F tT Judge Kaler for the reasons set out in a decision promulgated on 26 ^th March 2019. It is that decision that is the subject of the appeal before us.

2.              The appellant accepts that he does not qualify for a right to reside in the UK under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations.  He also accepts that he cannot satisfy the requirements for leave to remain in the UK on family life grounds, as set out in Appendix FM of the immigration rules.  The appellant relies upon the private life that he has established in the UK. 

3.              The evidence received by the Tribunal from the appellant is recorded at paragraph [5] of the JudgeÕs decision:

ÒÉ He said his marriage fell apart and he was to blame for that; he had behaved badly by drinking alcohol and taking drugs. He not (sic) applied for a divorce as he had hoped to reconcile with his wife but it was too late. He confirmed that he had parents and siblings in Bangladesh. His parents lived in their own home, were aged over 60 and his father, who used to work for the United Nations, has retired. He did not want to be a burden upon them. He had no experience of working in Bangladesh and he did not have enough money to set up his own business. He had not been there for 12 years. He would find it difficult to get a job and Bangladesh had a high crime rate. He had a diploma in Business Administration and he was managing the restaurant where he was currently working. He relies on the private life he has established in the UK.

4.              At paragraphs [9] and [10] of the decision, the F tT Judge summarises the claim as follows:

Ò9.    The facts are that the appellant has been in the UK since 2009 and has not returned to Bangladesh since. He has always been here with leave, although it has not been shown that his spouse was exercising treaty rights since 2011, when the couple married. They separated in 2015 and so only lived together for 4 years at most. Leave was not curtailed and the circumstances were not drawn to the attention of the respondent.

10.    The appellant has not established family life. He has established private life; he works. I do not know of any property or assets that he owns. He talks about his Òmeaningful relationshipsÓ here but provides no details of them. He does not have a partner or children. I accept he probably has friends and work colleagues.Ó

5.              At paragraph [11], the F tT Judge sets out paragraph 276ADE(1) of the immigration rules and at paragraph [12], she states; ÒThe application does not meet the requirements of sub paragraphs (iii) Ð(v).  The Appellant argues there are Òvery significant obstaclesÓ to his integration back to India.Ó.  

6.              The findings and conclusions of the F tT Judge are set out at paragraphs [13] to [21] of the decision.  Having considered the evidence, the F tT Judge found, at [15], that Ò There are no Òvery significant obstacles to the applicantÕs integrationÓ to Bangladesh.  The conditions in the immigration rules have not been met.Ó.  Having established that the appellant cannot satisfy the requirements of paragraph 276ADE(1) of the immigration rules, the Judge addressed the Article 8 claim outside the rules.  The Judge found that the appellant has established some form of private life.  In considering whether the decision to refuse leave to remain is proportionate, the F tT Judge had regard to the public interest considerations set out in s117B of The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and concluded, at [21], that the refusal is proportionate to the legitimate aim.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal

7.              The appellant claims that the F tT Judge made factual errors that are fundamental, and overlooked important evidence relevant to the question of whether there are Òvery significant obstaclesÓ to his integration back to Bangladesh.  The appellant identifies two factual errors.  First, at paragraph [12] of the decision, the Judge proceeds upon the premise that the appellant claims there are very significant obstacles to his integration back to ÒIndiaÓ, when in fact, the appellant is a national of Bangladesh.  Second, at paragraphs [2] and [9], the Judge refers to the appellant having been in the UK since 2009, when in fact, the appellant entered the UK in August 2006. The appellant claims that in reaching the decision, the F tT Judge overlooked the appellantÕs evidence that his mother is a housewife, and his father is retired. He claims that the Judge also overlooked the evidence that his parentsÕ only source of income is from state pensions, which is barely enough to cover their own expenses, and failed to take into account the very limited contact that the appellant has with his family in Bangladesh.

8.              Permission to appeal was granted by F tT Judge Hollingworth on 21 ^st May 2019.  The matter comes before us to determine whether the decision of the F tT Judge contains a material error of law, and if so, to remake the decision.

9.              At the conclusion of the hearing before us we informed the parties that we are not satisfied that there is a material error of law in the decision of the F tT Judge, and that we dismiss the appeal. We informed the parties that our written reasons for doing so will follow. We now provide our reasons.

10.          Taking his lead from the observations made by F tT Judge Hollingworth when permission to appeal was granted, Mr Malik submits that it is unclear whether the Judge has exclusively considered the totality of the factors relevant to integration in Bangladesh, in contradistinction to any factors appertaining to integration in India, and that in reaching his decision, the F tT Judge has not taken full account of the chronology.  Mr Malik submits that the F tT Judge proceeds upon the premise that the appellant has established a private life in the UK, over a period of almost 10 years, since August 2009, whereas the appellant has been in the United Kingdom and established a private life over a period of almost 13 years.

11.          Although it is right to note that the F tT Judge refers, at paragraph [12], to the appellant claiming that there are very significant obstacles to his reintegration to India, there is no doubt in our minds that the Judge addressed whether there would be very significant obstacles to the applicantÕs integration into Bangladesh.  Throughout the decision, at paragraphs [2], [5], [6], [9], [13], and [14], when referring to the background facts, the evidence, and the submissions, the F tT Judge refers to ÒBangladeshÓ.  The summary of the appellantÕs claim as set out in paragraph [5] of the decision correctly refers to the connections that the appellant has to Bangladesh. Importantly in her final analysis, at paragraph [15], the Judge states Ò There are no Òvery significant obstacles to the applicantÕs integrationÓ to BangladeshÉÓ.  The reference in paragraph [12] to ÒIndiaÓ, is in our judgement, immaterial.

12.          Similarly, the reference by the Judge to the appellant having been in the UK since 2009, is in our judgement, immaterial.  Paragraph 276ADE(1) of the rules recognises the significant private life that an individual who has continuously lived in the UK for at least 20 years (discounting any period of imprisonment), is likely to have established. There is no doubt here that on any view, the requirement at paragraph 276ADE(1)(iii) cannot be met by the appellant.  The focus under 276ADE(1)(vi) of the rules that is relied upon by the appellant, is whether there would be very significant obstacles to the appellantÕs integration into Bangladesh if he is required to leave the UK. Whether the appellant arrived in the United Kingdom in 2006 or 2009, does not assist in the determination of that issue. It was open to the F tT Judge to conclude, having considered all of the evidence, that there are no very significant obstacles to the appellantÕs integration to Bangladesh.

13.          The claim made by the appellant that the F tT Judge overlooked important evidence is simply not borne out by a careful reading of the JudgeÕs decision.  At paragraph [5] of the decision, the Judge refers to the appellantÕs parents and siblings in Bangladesh, and noted that the appellantÕs parents are aged over 60, and that his father is now retired. The Judge clearly considered the appellantÕs claim that he has no experience of working in Bangladesh, and he did not have enough money to set up his own business. The Judge noted that the appellant is in contact with his family in Bangladesh. Mr Malik submits that the appellant only speaks to his sister very occasionally.  That cannot in any way undermine the finding by the F tT Judge that the appellant has family in Bangladesh. In any event, that submission is contrary to the information provided by the appellantÕs solicitors in the covering letter, dated 22 June 2017, to the application. In that letter it is said that their client Ò ... does not have much family support network or friends in Bangladesh other than his parents and sister.Ó. 

14.          It is now well established that the obligation on a Tribunal is to give reasons in sufficient detail to show the principles on which the Tribunal has acted and the reasons that have led to the decision. Such reasons need not be elaborate, and do not need to address every argument or every factor which weighed in the decision. If a Tribunal has not expressly addressed an argument, but if there are grounds on which the argument could properly have been rejected, it should be assumed that the Tribunal acted on such grounds. It is sufficient that the critical reasons to the decision are recorded.

15.          It is clear in our judgement that the FtT Judge considered the private life claim advanced by the appellant. It is difficult to identify any exceptional circumstances capable of establishing a breach of Article 8, where the Judge has properly found that the requirements of the rules cannot be met by the appellant. The Judge rejected the appellantÕs claim for the reasons set out in the decision, and in our judgement it was open to her to do so. The claim that the F tT Judge overlooked material evidence is nothing more than a disagreement with findings that were properly made, and open to the Judge.

16.          It follows that in our judgment, the decision of the F tT Judge is not infected by a material error of law and the appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision

17.          The appeal is dismissed and the decision of F tT Judge Kaler stands.

 

Signed                                                                         Date                    5 ^th July 2019

Upper Tribunal Judge Mandalia

We have dismissed the appeal and there can be no fee award.