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 >> UI2021000227 [2023] UKAITUR UI2021000227 (26 June 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2023/UI2021000227.html
Cite as: [2023] UKAITUR UI2021000227
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI- 2021-000227 First-tier Tribunal No: HU/50074/2020 IA/00768/2020 |
|
|
|
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued
On the 26 June 2023
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
Between
Hakeem Kolawole Olugbenga Azeez
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Ms M Chowdhury, Counsel instructed by Daniel Aramide, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 9 February 2023
DECISION AND REASONS
(Extempore)
1. This is an appeal by a citizen of Nigeria against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State on 2 July 2020 refusing him leave to remain on human rights grounds. The appeal has been determined unsatisfactorily and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal has been set aside. The case is listed before me for redetermination.
2. A new issue has been raised with the consent of the Secretary of State before the hearing today, namely that the appellant has lived in the United Kingdom continuously for slightly in excess of twenty years, which in broad terms gives him a right to remain.
3. Mr Walker, for the Secretary of State, said that he is satisfied on the evidence that the appellant has lived in the United Kingdom for over twenty years and although in the past some concerns have been raised which we need not go into now, they have been overshadowed by the length of his stay and his being in a committed relationship. He is entitled to remain on the basis of twenty years.
4. That being so, then clearly the proportionality exercise under Article 8 must be exercised in his favour so that he is allowed to remain.
5. It follows therefore that I allow the appeal of the appellant on all grounds.
Notice of Decision
6. The appeal is allowed.
Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
22 June 2023