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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: OA/11748/2013

OA/11777/2013

OA/11778/2013

OA/11736/2013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Determination Promulgated
On 10 June 2014	On 3 July 2014

 

Before

 

LORD MATTHEWS

SITTING AS JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVIDGE

 

 

Between

 

MRS SHAZIA MUNIR BHATTI

MR ABDUL AHAD BHATTI

MISS ANZALA EMAN BHATTI

MISS ILSA AIMAN BHATTI

Appellants

and

 

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - ISLAMABAD

Respondent

 

Representation:

 

For the Appellants: Mr Muhammad Munir Bhatti, Sponsor

For the Respondent: Mr L Tarlow

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

 

1. In the first place we are very grateful indeed to Mr Tarlow for a very fair presentation of the case which has made what, on the face of it, was a somewhat difficult arithmetical calculation rather easier for us.

 

2. The appeal is against a decision of Judge Scobbie of the First-tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 18 March 2014, and the issue before us was whether he was correct in calculating the income and savings of the appellant and her family.

 

3. The conclusions to which he came showed that the family fell short of the financial sums required in terms of the Immigration Rules. Mr Tarlow very fairly conceded that his calculations involved an element of speculation and for our own part we find it impossible to work out how the various conclusions were reached. That in itself seems to us to be an error of law but furthermore the judge refused to accept certain documentary evidence purely on the basis that he did not accept the sponsor’s own word that the documents were submitted with the application. No adverse credibility findings at all were made in the determination and we would have expected some comment on the credibility of the sponsor or at least some reasoning as to why his word was not accepted in that regard. That again seems to us to be an error of law.

 

4. Mr Tarlow very fairly conceded that he would not resist any submission that an error of law was made. We find that the judge fell into error and we remake the decision. We heard unchallenged evidence from the sponsor as to his financial position. If his evidence is correct then he does in fact meet the financial provisions in terms of the Rules. We do not think it necessary to go into what his financial position is. There was no suggestion by Mr Tarlow that the sponsor does not meet the Rules and we accept what the latter had to say.

 

5. We allow all the appeals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed H. Matthews Date

 

 

Lord Matthews

Sitting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal