(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/12307/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 th June 2019
On 4 th July 2019
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LEVER
mrs vimiaben patel
(ANONYMITY not retained)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellant: Mr Nadeem
For the Respondent: Mr Walker
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant born on 1 st June 1944 is a citizen of India. The Appellant was represented by Mr Nadeem. The Respondent was represented by Mr Walker a Senior Presenting Officer.
Substantive Issues under Appeal
2. The Appellant had been issued with visit visas between 2003 and 2015 to visit her family in the UK. On 21 st January 2016 she made application for settlement based on compassionate grounds. The Respondent had refused that application. The Appellant appealed that refusal and following a hearing promulgated on 2 nd February 2017 the First-tier Tribunal allowed her appeal. Permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier was granted by another Judge of the First-tier and at a hearing in the Upper Tribunal on 3 rd November 2017 the Upper Tribunal remitted the appeal for a rehearing by the First-tier Tribunal. That rehearing took place at Manchester on 9 th January 2016 before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Chambers. The judge found that the Appellant did not come within the Immigration Rules and dismissed the appeal.
3. Permission to appeal that decision was applied for and initially refused on 12 th March 2019. The application was renewed and permission to appeal was granted by the Upper Tribunal on the basis it was arguable that the judge had not used a properly structured approach and had erred in consideration of the case under Article 8 of the ECHR. Directions were issued to the Upper Tribunal firstly to decide whether an error of law had been made by the First-tier Tribunal Judge and the matter comes before me in accordance with those directions.
4. Mr Walker on behalf of the Home Office fairly and properly agreed a material error of law had been made by the judge in the First-tier Tribunal by failing to consider Article 8 outside of the Rules particularly given the circumstances of this case.
5. A material error of law was made by the judge in this case such that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside and remade afresh in the First-tier Tribunal before a judge other than Judge Chambers.
No anonymity direction is made.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Lever