UI2023004398

      By a decision dated 23 February 2024, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Welch and I found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law such that its decision fell to be set aside. Our error of law decision appears at Annex 1. As recorded at [5-6] of our error of law decision, the background of the appeal is as follows:

The Appellant is a national of Nigeria, born in 1960. Having been granted a six-month visa as a visitor, he entered the United Kingdom ("UK") on 20 April 2007 and thereafter remained in the UK unlawfully.

Following his conviction for money laundering, the Respondent made a decision, dated 25 November 2014, to deport the Appellant. The subsequent challenges to this decision culminated in a decision by the First-tier Tribunal, promulgated on 3 March 2017, to dismiss the Appellant's appeal. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, further submissions were subsequently made by the Appellant. Those further submissions were refused by the Respondent in a decision dated 23 May 2022. This is the decision which is the subject matter of the current proceedings.

      At the outset of the resumed hearing, Mr Nath, for the appellant, told us that the error of law decision contained an factual error at [27(2)]; the appellant's wife, Ms Zipperle, had never had a carer during the time she has lived in the United Kingdom but had relied on the care provided by the appellant only.

      Both the appellant and his wife (Ms Zipperle) gave evidence at the resumed hearing. The burden of proof is on the appellant and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. As recorded in the error of law decision, the appellant must prove that it would be (i) unduly harsh for Ms Zipperle to return to Nigeria with the appellant or (ii) unduly harsh for her to remain in the United Kingdom whilst the appellant returns.