Immigration Appeal Dismissed Due to Legal Error
📌 In brief
The Upper Tribunal dismissed an immigration appeal after identifying a legal error made by the First-tier Tribunal, relying on precedent established in a previous case regarding similar legal issues.
⚖️ Legal holding
An error of law in the First-tier Tribunal decision leads to its dismissal by the Upper Tribunal.
📖 Technical summary
The Upper Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal, setting aside the First-tier Tribunal decision and dismissing the appellant's original appeal.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Upper Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal, setting aside the First-tier Tribunal decision and dismissing the appellant's original appeal due to an error of law identified in Celik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER Case No: UI-2022-006327 First-tier Tribunal No: EA/11758/2021 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Directions Issued: 26th January 2024 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PICKUP Between Secretary of State for the Home Department Appellant and [RESPONDENT]) Respondent
DECISION AND
REASONS 1. Following a grant of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Bagral) promulgated 28 April 2022, this appeal was stayed awaiting the judgement of the Court of appeal in [NAME] v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921. Judgement was given on 31 July 2023. Mr [NAME] appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal was dismissed.
2. By the directions of the Upper Tribunal (Judge O’Callaghan) issued on 6 October 2023, expressing the provisional view that the respondent’s grounds of appeal in this case asserting an error of law by the First-tier Tribunal were bound to succeed, Mr [RESPONDENT] was required to reconsider his position in light of the judgement in [NAME] v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921.
3. Inter alia, the Upper Tribunal directed that: “If, having properly considered the judgement in Celik, Mr [RESPONDENT] cannot resist the appeal and the only possible outcome would be a finding of a material error of law and the outright dismissal of Mr [RESPONDENT]’s original appeal, the parties are invited to agree a consent order that is to be [RESPONDENT] by the Upper Tribunal pursuant to rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 disposing of the proceedings. The request to make a consent order must be received by the Upper Tribunal within 21 days of the date these directions are sent.” ©CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024
Appeal No: UI-2022-006327 (EA/11758/2021)
4. The Upper Tribunal additionally directed that, “In the absence of a substantive response to these directions within 21 days of the date they are sent, or if for any other reason the Tribunal considers it appropriate, the appeal will be listed for disposal on notice to the parties shortly after the expiry of the 21 days.” 5. As there was no response from either party to the Upper Tribunal’s directions and given that no draft order inviting the Upper Tribunal to consent to the withdrawal of the appeal has been received, on 8.1.24 the Upper Tribunal directed this matter to be listed for final disposal on notice to the parties at the earliest convenient date.
6. By email of 23.1.24, the appellant’s legal representatives notified the Upper Tribunal that in light of [APPELLANT], the appellant cannot resist the appellant’s appeal and invited the Upper Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in favour of the respondent. They also explained that the appellant has now returned to Albania, from where he proposes to make a fresh application for Entry Clearance.
7. In the circumstances, the proper course is to allow the respondent’s appeal, set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and remake the decision in the appeal by dismissing it. NOTICE OF
DECISION The respondent’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety. The decision in the appellant’s appeal is remade by dismissing it. I make no order for costs. DMW Pickup Judge of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber 26 January 2024 2
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Dismisses Appeal for Leave to Remain Based on Family Life
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Upholds Deportation Despite Family Ties
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Upholds Refusal of Entry Clearance Appeal
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Overturns Leave to Remain Decision Due to Errors
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Afghan Citizens' Entry Appeal
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Rejects Human Rights Appeal on Insurmountable Obstacles
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Upholds Decision on Marriage Certificate Translation
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Upholds FtT Decision on Residence Requirements
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Dismisses Appeal for Pre-Settled Status Under EUSS
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Dismisses Leave to Remain Appeal Based on Relationship Claim
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Dismisses EUSS Appeal for Niece of EEA National
- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Upper Tribunal Dismisses Appeal on EUSS
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The appellant did not meet the strict requirements set out in the Immigration Rules.
- The presence of long-term residence and family ties was insufficient to override public interest considerations, especially with serious criminal convictions.
- Substantial evidence of insurmountable obstacles or exceptional circumstances was lacking.
- Applicants must provide certified translations of foreign language documents when applying under relevant schemes.
- An individual failed to establish a continuous period of residence in the UK as required by specific immigration provisions.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appellant's immigration appeal due to a legal error identified by the First-tier Tribunal.
Who was involved?
The Home Office and an individual seeking asylum in the UK were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that there was an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision based on the precedent set by a person v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 921.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were cited, but the case was decided based on legal precedents and principles.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the identification of an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal's decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the appellant, dismissing their appeal.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should carefully review any legal errors that may have occurred during their initial tribunal hearing.
What evidence or documents mattered?
No specific evidence or documents were mentioned as being crucial to the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from the Upper Tribunal can sometimes be appealed to higher courts, but it depends on the specifics of each case.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving immigration appeals.