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

 

The Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal number: IA/47572/2014

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House	Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On October 6, 2015	On October 8, 2015

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

 

 

Between

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant

and

 

MS TETIANA DERKACH

(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION)

Respondent

 

 

Representation:

Appellant Mr Bramble (Home Office Presenting Officer)

Respondent Mr Canter, Counsel, instructed by LS Legal Immigration Solicitors

 

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1.              Whereas the original respondent is the appealing party, I shall, in the interests of convenience and consistency, replicate the nomenclature of the decision at first instance.

2.              The appellant is a national of Ukraine. The background to this case is: She entered the United Kingdom on May 30, 2006 with leave to enter as a work permit holder valid until May 30, 2011. She then applied for indefinite leave to remain as a work permit holder that this was refused on August 5, 2011 although she was granted discretionary leave to remain on the basis of her relationship with a person present and settled and this was valid until August 4, 2014. Her current application was lodged on August 4, 2014 and was made under both the Immigration Rules and article 8 ECHR.

3.              The respondent refused her application on November 19, 2014 and the appellant appealed this refusal under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on December 3, 2014.

4.              The matter was heard by Judges of the First-tier Tribunal Barrowclough and Osborne on March 25, 2015 and in a decision promulgated on April 28, 2015 they allowed her appeal under both the Immigration Rules and article 8 ECHR.

5.              The respondent applied for permission to appeal on May 1, 2015 and permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Grant-Hutchinson on July 14, 2015 only on the basis that the Tribunal may have erred in failing to have regard to Sections 117A-D of the 2002 Act when considering the application under the Immigration Rules.

6.              Mr Canter filed a Rule 24 response on behalf of the appellant on July 27, 2015 arguing there was no error.

7.              The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction and pursuant to Rule 14 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I see no reason to make an order now.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

8.              Mr Bramble accepted that in giving permission the Judge had accepted the Tribunal was entitled to attach such weight as it felt appropriate to the evidence and had given cogent reasons for its decision. The only reason an error had been found was because the Judge said it was arguable the Tribunal had failed to address sections 117A-D of the 2002 Act in its assessment of paragraph 276ADE HC 395.

9.              However, both representatives agreed that this permission has been given without reference to the decision of Bossade (ss117A-D-interrelationship with the Rules) UKUT 415 (IAC) which confirms there is no requirement to consider these provisions when considering paragraph 276ADE HC 395 and consequently there was no arguable error in law.

DECISION

10.          There was no material error. I uphold the original decisions.

 

 

Signed: Dated:

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

 

TO THE RESPONDENT

FEE AWARD

I make no alteration to the fee award made.

 

Signed: Dated:

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis