[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 >> IA275552012 [2013] UKAITUR IA275552012 (6 August 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2013/IA275552012.html Cite as: [2013] UKAITUR IA275552012

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal no: IA 27555-12

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

At	Decision signed: 06.08.2013
on 06.08.2013	sent out: 06.08.2013

 

Before:

Upper Tribunal Judge

John FREEMAN

 

Between:

Yaminu SULEMANA

appellant

and

 

respondent

Representation:

 

For the appellant: Mr Edward Akohene, solicitor, Afrifa & Partners

For the respondent: Mr Tony Melvin

 

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

This is an appeal, by the , against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Robert Crawford), sitting without a hearing (the appellant ) at Manchester on 30 May, to an EEA appeal by a citizen of Ghana, born 2 July 1973. The appellant had gone through a form of proxy marriage with the sponsor, a citizen of the Netherlands; the judge accepted that was valid, but did not accept that the sponsor was a ‘qualified person’, on the basis of the employment she said she now had with Heathfields Security Limited. He noted that she had produced only a single pay-slip for this, dated 21 December 2012.

 

2.        Unfortunately, as the judge who permission in the First-tier Tribunal pointed out, three further pay-slips had been sent in on 17 April. The overlooking of such evidence, sent in without any covering letter or further information, is an inevitable risk for appellant’s in choosing the cheaper paper appeal option. However, it did amount to an error of law which requires the decision to be re-made: the only issue will be whether the sponsor remains a ‘qualified person’ on the basis of her employment at the date of disposal. On article 8, the judge was clearly right about the appellant and the sponsor being able to go and live in the Netherlands, if they wished.

3.        I say ‘disposal’, because the appeal cannot be listed for an oral re-hearing, unless the appellant pays the fee for that. So that he can exercise his right to choose about that without any undue difficulty, I am directing the papers to be sent to Taylor House, his local hearing centre. If the appellant wants an oral hearing, then his solicitors must apply there, with the fee, by 3 September; otherwise there will be a fresh disposal on the papers.

Appeal : first-tier decision set aside

Decision to be re-made by First-tier Tribunal, not Judge Crawford

 

(a judge of the Upper Tribunal)