![]() |
[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 >> HU049232016 [2018] UKAITUR HU049232016 (5 June 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/HU049232016.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR HU49232016, [2018] UKAITUR HU049232016 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/04923/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Civil Justice Centre, Manchester |
Determination Promulgated |
On 4 th June 2018 |
On 5 th June 2018 |
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER
Between
NIDA ASLAM
Appellant
And
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr Khalid Gill, Gill Law Chambers
For the Respondent: Mr P Duffy, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. First-tier Tribunal Beach granted Ms Aslam permission to appeal the decision of First-tier Tribunal judge Kelly who had dismissed her human rights appeal following the refusal of her application for Entry Clearance as the spouse of her British sponsor.
2. First-tier Tribunal Judge Kelly found that the appellant had submitted the documents required to meet the criteria in the Immigration Rules. He also found that the sponsor's income was more than the required £18,600. Those findings were not subject to challenge. For some unexplained reason the judge dismissed the appeal.
3. Mr Duffy accepted, correctly, that the judge had failed to make a clear reasoned finding for dismissing the appeal and that such a failure amounted to a material error of law. I set aside the decision to be remade, such findings as First-tier Tribunal judge Kelly had made retained.
4. Mr Duffy submitted that there could be scenarios where the relevant documents had been submitted but for some reason they did not illustrate with sufficient precision that the criteria in the Immigration Rules were met; even though income was shown to be sufficient, if the requirements of the Rules were not met this would not necessarily render a decision to refuse a human rights application disproportionate absent some compelling reason. However, he accepted that this was not such a case. In this case, the appellant had submitted the required documents, as found by the judge, and the income was above the required level, as found by the judge.
5. I allow the appeal.
Conclusions:
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I set aside the decision
I re-make the decision in the appeal by allowing it.
Date 4 th June 2018
Upper Tribunal Judge Coker