BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> EA101842016 [2018] UKAITUR EA101842016 (11 January 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/EA101842016.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR EA101842016 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/10184/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision and Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 10 January 2018 |
On 11 January 2018 |
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SOUTHERN
Between
ADEEL TAHIR
Appellant
And
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr S. Mustafa, of Britain, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms S. Fijiwala, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION
1. The appellant's appeal against a decision of the respondent, made on 16 August 2016, to refuse his application for a residence card as an extended family member of an EEA national exercising Treaty rights in the United Kingdom was dismissed on the basis that it was established by the reported decision in Sala (EFMs: Right of Appeal) [2016] UKUT 411 (IAC) that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
2. It has now been held that Sala was wrongly decided and that there was indeed a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision taken pursuant to the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 to refuse such an application. See Khan v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1755.
3. The decision under challenge in these proceedings was taken pursuant to the 2006 Regulations and therefore it was an error of law for the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
4. This means that this appeal has not yet begun its journey through the First-tier Tribunal and, as it is agreed between the parties that there is a triable issue to be resolved, the appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed to the extent that the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined on its merits.
Summary of decision:
In dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction the First-tier Tribunal made a material error of law.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed to the extent that the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined on its merits.
Signed
Upper Tribunal Judge Southern
Date: 10 January 2018
