OA197112012

The appellant, born July 20, 1969 is a citizen of Bangladesh. He has applied for a certificate of entitlement to a right of abode under section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended). The respondent refused his application in a refusal letter dated August 29, 2012.

a. Domicile of origin and domicile of choice are complex issues especially when children are involved. The FtTJ was not helped by failure of the two representatives to address the key issues. The FtTJ should have had regard to whether the appellant�s father retained Bangladeshi domicile when he married in 1965 because this would determine whether the appellant was legitimate in the eyes of the law. Put simply, if he retained his domicile of origin then the appellant was legitimate and entitled to the certificate he had applied for.

b. Alternatively, if the marriage was void the FtTJ should have determined whether the parents reasonably believed the marriage to be valid. As the appellant was born before the Family Law Reform Act 1987 there was no presumption the parents reasonably believed that the marriage was valid unless there was evidence to the contrary.

c. I was satisfied the FtTJ failed to consider these issues and concentrated on DNA tests and relationship between the appellant and siblings and there was an error in law.

I then adjourned the case for further evidence to be submitted and issued directions requiring the appellant to serve additional evidence and a skeleton argument on the respondent and Tribunal. I also gave directions for the respondent to file a skeleton argument setting out her position once she had received the papers from the appellant�s solicitors.