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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/01630/2016

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford	Determination Promulgated
On 14 th July, 2017	On 22 nd August, 2017

 

 

Before

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley

 

Between

 

Mr Syed Muminur Rahman

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE )

 

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

 

Respondent

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Mr M Chaudhry of KC Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mrs R Pettersen, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

 

1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh born on 17 ^th September, 1989.

 

2. On 26 ^th September, 2016 the respondent decided to refuse to issue a residence card as confirmation of a right of residence under European Community law as the extended family of an EEA national exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom to the appellant. The appellant appealed and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge E Fowell on 21 ^st November, 2016.

 

3. The First-tier Tribunal Judge concluded that the First-tier Tribunal had no relevant jurisdiction to hear the appellant's appeal following the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal: Albania) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC). As a result the judge felt that since there was no jurisdiction he had no need to prepare a determination for promulgation by the First-tier Tribunal.

 

4. Dissatisfied with the judge's decision and relying on LO (Partner of EEA national) Nigeria [2009] UKAIT 00034, the appellant sought permission to appeal the judge's decision.

 

5. Notwithstanding the fact that the First-tier Tribunal had not issued a determination leave was granted on the basis that, " it is on balance arguable that it is appropriate for the matter to proceed for hearing in the Upper Tribunal as an appeal rather than being required to progress by way of judicial review."

 

6. I explained to Mr Chaudhry that the First-tier Tribunal Judge had concluded that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appellant's appeal and given the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Sala (EFMs: right of appeal) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC), and that the Vice President of the Upper Tribunal was on the panel in both the case of Sala and LO, Sala represents the Tribunal's current thinking. Mr Chaudhry argued that the decision of the Tribunal in LO was a correct statement of law and that the decision in Sala was wrong. He confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

 

7. Given the decision of the Tribunal in Sala, which represents the Upper Tribunal's current thinking, I have concluded that the First-tier Tribunal Judge did not err in concluding that he had no jurisdiction.

 

Notice of Decision

 

The appeal is dismissed.

No anonymity direction is made.

Richard Chalkley

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley

 

 

TO THE RESPONDENT

FEE AWARD

 

There is no fee payable.

 

Richard Chalkley

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley