BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


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 >> UI2025000801 [2025] UKAITUR UI2025000801 (30 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2025/UI2025000801.html
Cite as: [2025] UKAITUR UI2025000801

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Case No: UI-2025-000801

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/61199/2024

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

 

30 th May 2025

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

 

Between

 

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appellant

and

 

EM

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Respondent

Representation:

 

For the Appellant: Mr Mullen, Senior Presenting Officer

For the Respondent: Mr Winter

 

Heard at Edinburgh on 28 May 2025

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.       I shall refer to the appellant as 'the respondent' and to the respondent as 'the appellant' as they respectively appeared before the First-tier Tribunal.

 

2.       The appellant is a male citizen of Namibia. He appealed the to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 7 April 2024 refusing his claim for international protection and on human rights (Article 8 ECHR) grounds. The First-tier Tribunal, by a decision dated 25 December 2024, dismissed the protection appeal (asylum; Articles 2 and 3 ECHR) but allowed the appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds. The Secretary of State now appeals to the Upper Tribunal. The appellant does not seek to challenge the Tribunal's decision on the protection appeal.

 

3.       At the outset of the appeal, Mr Mullen, Senior Presenting Officer for the Secretary of State, told me that the respondent no longer relies on [2] of the grounds of appeal. This ground challenges the judge's finding that the child of the appellant's partner is British. Both parties accept that, at the First-tier Tribunal hearing, written evidence was produced (and accepted by both representatives) which showed that the partner had been granted leave to remain on the basis of the child's British nationality.

 

4.       Mr Mullen did not make any further submissions but relied on the grounds of appeal.

 

5.       At [23], the First-tier Tribunal judge wrote as follows:

 

I have sought to consider all the relevant factors. I summary (sic) I accept there is a relationship between the appellant and his partner and her child. I accept the appellant's evidence that now he has his own accommodation with his partner and her child and they have formed a family unit .This is something which he had not experienced before. I accept that he is committed to them. I find that family life within in meaning of articulate exists. I find the provisions of section 117B (6)applies so there is no contra presumption. It is my conclusion that it would be a disproportionate interference with that family life if the appellant were removed. Given that his partner has been granted status on the basis of her British child she is likely to remain here and benefit from all that Britain can offer. If the appellant is removed I believe it would effectively end the relationship. It is my conclusion that having regard to all the circumstances this would be a disproportionate outcome.

 

6.       I accept Mr Winter's submission that that the judge's reasoning is adequate. The judge accepted that the appellant and his partner are in a genuine and subsisting relationship and that the appellant has a genuine parental relationship with the partner's child. Those were findings available to the judge on the evidence. The judge found that (contrary to her evidence) the partner had been aware of the precariousness of the appellant's status in the United Kingdom [14]. However, the assertion in the grounds that judge had failed to take account of the precarious nature of the appellant's immigration status and the challenge in the grounds at [3] (failure to give adequate weight to the public interest), have no merit given the application of Section 117B(6) of the 2002 Act. That section provides that 'the public interest does not require the person's removal where (a)the person has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and (b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom.' It was not argued before the First-tier Tribunal that it would be reasonable to expect the child to leave the United Kingdom whilst, if it applies as the judge clearly found that it did, the section is determinative as to the matter of the public interest.

 

7.       In the circumstances, the Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision

The Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Lane

Dated: 28 May 2025

 

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010