BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> EA106102016 & EA106112016 [2018] UKAITUR EA106102016 (4 May 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/EA106102016.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR EA106102016 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: EA/10610/2016
EA/10611/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House On 26 April 2018 |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 04 May 2018 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
SABINA YEASMIN & IBRAHIM JAHAN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellants are citizens of Bangladesh, born 01.01.1985 and 12.01.1978 respectively. They each made an application to the Secretary of State for an EEA residence card. The application was refused in a decision served on 17.8.16, for reasons that I need not need to set out herein.
Decision of the First-tier Tribunal
2. The appellants lodged appeals before the FtT. The appeals came before FtT Judge Martin who concluded in a decision dated 08.08.2017 that the FtT did not have jurisdiction to determine the appeal. No findings were made in relation to the substance of the appeal. The Judge's conclusion was informed by the guidance given by this Tribunal in Sala [2016] UKUT 411.
3. The appellants appealed such decision to the Upper Tribunal and FtT Judge Andrew granted permission. Thus, the matter comes before me.
Discussion
4. The Court of Appeal has now given consideration to the very issue in play in the instant case - see Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1755. The Court concluded that the Upper Tribunal had been wrong in its conclusion and rationale in Sala. It is not in dispute that the effect of the decision in Khan, if applied to this case, is that the First-tier Tribunal was wrong to conclude that it did not have jurisdiction in this appeal.
5. For this reason, I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remit the appeals back to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.
Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
The appeal are remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
Signed: Dated: 26.4.18
Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor
