Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> EA105522016 [2018] UKAITUR EA105522016 (7 February 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/EA105522016.html
Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR EA105522016
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/10552/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Determined at Field House without a hearing |
Determination Promulgated |
|
On 5 th February 2018 |
On 7 th February 2018 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN
Between
TORITSEJU EDEMA-SILO
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
DECISION AND REASONS
1. On 22nd December 2017 Upper Tribunal Judge O'Connor gave the following directions:-
1. Irrespective of the merits of the other arguments relating to the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Appellant, it is plain in the light of the decision in Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1755, the First-tier Tribunal was wrong in law to follow the Upper Tribunal's decision in Sala and conclude that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
2. The Tribunal is minded to find an error of law, set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.
3. A party who is opposed to this course is directed to inform the Tribunal in writing (giving reasons), not later than 7 working days from the date this decision is sent by the Upper Tribunal. Following that period, the Upper Tribunal will issue its decision.
2. There has been no response to these directions by either party. Accordingly, I am satisfied that neither party objects to the matter being determined without a hearing and has nothing further to say. I am satisfied that that the determination of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error of law for the reasons set out above, and must therefore be set aside. Given the nature of the error, I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh determination on all issues.
Summary of conclusions
1. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error of law and I set it aside.
2. I remit the decision to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision on all issues
Signed Date 5 th February 2018
Upper Tribunal Judge Martin