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 >> EA082222017 [2019] UKAITUR EA082222017 (12 February 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2019/EA082222017.html
Cite as: [2019] UKAITUR EA82222017, [2019] UKAITUR EA082222017
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/08222/2017
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 31 January 2019 |
On 12 February 2019 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RINTOUL
Between
OLEKSANDR ZADRONZHNYY
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Ms Patyna, instructed by Sterling Lawyers
For the Respondent: Mr T Wilding, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION MADE PURSUANT TO RULES 34, 39 & 40 (3) OF THE
TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
- The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 25 September 2018.
- I am satisfied the Judge misdirected himself in law as to who bears the burden of proof and that was compounded by the reference to the Appellant not having rebutted the evidence of the Respondent. The Judge focused on whether the marriage is subsisting and not on whether marriage is one of convenience, that is, a sham from the beginning. He failed to make any findings as to whether the marriage was one of convenience from the beginning which was for the SSHD prove, despite apparently having accepted that it was not when granting an initial residence card. For those two reasons alone, the errors were material to the outcome. Given the failure properly to evaluate all of the evidence, the matter needs to be remitted to be heard again by a different Judge.
- Rule 40 (1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provided that the Upper Tribunal may give a decision orally at a hearing which I did. Rule 40 (3) provides that the Upper Tribunal must provide written reasons for its decision with a decision notice unless the parties have consented to the Upper Tribunal not giving written reasons. I am satisfied that the parties have given such consent at the hearing.
Notice of Decision
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside.
2. I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing on all issues.
Signed Date: 31 January 2019
Upper Tribunal Judge Rintoul