ON APPEAL FROM UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
IMMIGRATION JUDGE HOLT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| KEE KONG FRANKY CHUI
|- AND -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No : 020 7404 1400 Fax No : 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE RIX:
"12. It was confirmed by counsel at the outset of the hearing that the appeal of the appellant is limited to issues of consideration of his Article 8 private life rights only. Accordingly it is for the appellant to establish the existence of private life in the United Kingdom and that his removal would give rise to an interference with such rights. Once such interference is established I must strike a fair balance between the rights of the appellant on the one hand and those of the community on the other hand inherent in the whole of the Convention.
"13. I have already referred to the appeal grounds of the appellant which do not appear to assist. However the skeleton argument produced on behalf of the appellant, as already observed, refers not only to the appellant but also to Mrs Lua and their daughter Abigail Chui. Careful scrutiny of the respondent's bundle shows that in lodging his appeal on 29 December 2009 the appellant stated that two other members of his family were intending to appeal against an immigration decision, namely Mrs Lua and Ms Chui. The respondent's bundle does contain a notice of immigration decision to remove Abigail Chui from the United Kingdom as an illegal entrant under the provisions of Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 dated 9 December 2009. However there is no appeal arising in relation to this notice and the only appeal which has ever been before the Tribunal for consideration is the appeal of Mr Chui. Yet further the notice of application which was before the Tribunal related only to Mr Chui. Accordingly reference in the paperwork prepared on behalf of the appellant to Mrs Lau and Abigail Chui as being appellants is incorrect and, for the purposes of the appeal before me, I am only able to consider the appeal of Mr Kee Kong Franky Chui and no other person.
14. It follows that because I have been informed that this is an appeal which relates to Article 8 private life rights only, I am only able to take into account the private life rights of Kee Kong Franky Chui and not those of his wife or daughter as claimed. I observe that the skeleton argument produced by Mr Jones refers extensively to family life existing. In the circumstances, however, I do not consider any claim for family life. I also observe that if an immigration decision has been taken in respect of any other party member of his family about which they complain, it would be a matter for that other family member to take steps so as to bring their position before the Tribunal in order to enable the appellate process to consider their situation. However, in this appeal, I am limited only to considering the position of Mr Chui."
"I have set out the position on behalf of the appellant in my skeleton argument which was that it was necessary for the tribunal to consider the family life between Mr Chui and his wife and daughter and the impact of removal on each of them. However, in light of the approach that Immigration Judge Hall had indicated he proposed to take I felt unable to argue otherwise, and neither accepted or rejected the approach Immigration Judge Hall indicated he intended to take."
Order: Application refused.