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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: AA/08243/2014

AA/08245/2014

AA/08246/2014

AA/08244/2014

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at: Manchester	Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On: 14 th October 2015	On: 27 th November 2015

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

 

 

Between

 

SR

AK

MK

1 ^st, 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd Appellants

Master A

(anonymity direction made)

4 ^th Appellant

and

 

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

 

 

Representation:

For the 1 ^st, 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd Appellants: Mr Halligan, Counsel instructed by Malik & Malik Solicitors

For the 4 ^th Appellant: Mr Wood, Rochdale Law Centre

For the Respondent: Mr Harrison, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

NOTICE

1.              The Appellants are all nationals of Pakistan. The first Appellant SR is the mother of the remaining Appellants who are all minors.

2.              Their linked appeals against decisions to remove them from the United Kingdom were dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal on the 8 ^th December 2014. In a written decision dated 27 ^th March 2015 I set aside the findings of the First-tier Tribunal in respect of Article 8. The findings on the asylum grounds advanced by SR, with her children as dependents, were expressly preserved.

3.              Subsequent to that decision the Respondent agreed to review all four cases, having particular regard to the fact that Master A is now in the care of Rochdale Social Services and that his mother and siblings continue to have contact with him. At the hearing on the 14 ^th October 2015 Mr Harrison informed the Tribunal and the parties that on the 9 ^th October 2015 a decision had been made to grant all four Appellants Discretionary Leave until the 9 ^th January 2017, that being Master A's birthday. Written confirmation that this is so has now been provided, by way of letter dated 9 ^th October 2015.

4.              Mr Wood and Mr Halligan indicated their agreement that there was before me no residual protection-based claim. There was new material, namely disclosures made by Master A to Rochdale Social Services which may have resulted in a different outcome had it been made available to the First-tier Tribunal; that could not however show there to have been an error of law in the decision of Judge Birkby. If the Appellants wish to rely on that evidence in support of a fresh claim, that is a matter for them.

5.              The Appellants have all been granted limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Pursuant to s104 (4A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 these appeals are therefore deemed abandoned.

 

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce

 

17 ^th October 2015