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 >> UI2022006243 [2023] UKAITUR UI2022006243 (25 June 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2023/UI2022006243.html
Cite as: [2023] UKAITUR UI2022006243
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No:
UI-2022-
006243
First-tier Tribunal No:
HU/52285/2021
IA/06675/2021
On the 25 June 2023
v
2. Her appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Young-Harry for a hearing on 29 September 2022. In a decision dated 31 October 2022, the judge dismissed the appeal.
3. Permission to appeal was sought and refused by the First-tier Tribunal but renewed grounds of appeal were made on 28 December 2022, which provided at ground 1 that the judge had failed to read or take account of one of the two bundles submitted by the Appellant, which contain material evidence relating to the person for whom she cares, Mrs Brooks and her health conditions and also third party statements of support in relation to the relationship between the Appellant and Mrs Brooks. There were further grounds of appeal raised also in relation to whether or not there was family life between the Appellant and Mrs Brooks and whether the judge had failed to make relevant and sustainable material findings in relation to Article 8 family life and/or had failed adequately to take into account the impact of the Appellant's removal on Mrs Brooks and whether this would amount to justifiably harsh consequences.
4. Permission to appeal was granted Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam on 13 February 2023 in the following terms:
6. In light of the pragmatic concession by Mr Lindsay on behalf of the Secretary of State, I find that the First tier Tribunal judge erred materially in law in that he failed to take account of material evidence in the form of a 45 page bundle submitted on behalf of the Appellant. I find that the failure to take account of this evidence could have a made a material difference to the outcome of the appeal.
Rebecca Chapman
14 June 2023