IA001822015

In this decision the Appellant is the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Respondent is the Claimant. The Claimant, a national of Thailand, date of birth [ ○ ] 1979, appealed against the Secretary of State's decisions, dated 22 December 2014, to refuse leave to enter and to curtail existing leave to enter, dated 20 May 2013, and to make removal directions.

The grounds of appeal against that decision in the most general terms alleged that the Secretary of State's decisions were unlawful and incompatible with European Convention rights. In addition the Claimant claimed that the decision to curtail leave was unreasonable, irrational, evidently unlawful and also that her previous visits had been lawful and that she had a good immigration history.

The matter came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Loughridge (the Judge) who on 13 July 2015 allowed the appeal on Article 8 ECHR grounds.

The judge did not address any of the immigration decisions at all but solely considered Article 8 ECHR on the basis that the Secretary of State had not done so and that there had been no proper assessment of the best interests of her three children, under the age of 8 years of age, who were British nationals, living in the United Kingdom with their father [Mr W]. I infer that the judge assumed that there were no issues raised in relation to the Immigration Rules because at paragraph 3 of the decision [D] he abbreviated the grounds solely to Article 8 ECHR.

Whilst it is plain that an out-of-country application for leave to enter may not have valid appeal rights, it was clear that there was a potential for appeal against curtailment and removal directions. I raised these matters with the parties who agreed that the issues of curtailment and removal directions were appealable decisions. The Secretary of State's grounds essentially challenged the fact that the judge had only considered Article 8 ECHR: That was the heart of challenges to both grounds of appeal.