Immigration

IA167302014

[2015] UKAITUR IA167302014United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments2015

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

The appellant appeals with permission against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge I Ross promulgated on 2 December 2014.

The appellant is a citizen of Nigeria who arrived in the United Kingdom, she says in 2004. She has a daughter who was born here on 15 February 2008. On 28 November 2008 she applied for an EEA residence permit which was refused. Further applications were made for leave to remain most recently on 30 May 2012, followed by further representations on 5 March 2014.

The Secretary of State had considered that the appellant did not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules, either Appendix FM or paragraph 276ADE. She also considered, having had due regard to the best interests of the child, that there were no exceptional circumstances such that she should not be removed from the United Kingdom. The daughter did not have a right of appeal against the decision.

On appeal, Judge Ross heard evidence from the appellant. He also heard evidence from her former partner who is the father of the appellant's daughter who was at the time of the decision aged 6½. It was accepted before Judge Ross that the appellant could not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules and thus the issue before the First-tier Tribunal was whether, notwithstanding that the Immigration Rules could not be met, it would nonetheless be disproportionate in article 8 terms to remove the appellant.

The judge's decision is further amplified at paragraphs 15 and 16 as to the balancing exercise to be undertaken.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

Mr Clarke submitted that there was no material error and that although this case might have adequately better been dealt with in light of the decision in Singh & Khalid which of course was promulgated after the decision of Judge Ross, there was no material error drawing my attention in particular to the issues in EV (Philippines) in the Court of Appeal.

I am satisfied that in this case the has not been a proper analysis of the child's best interests given that there is no finding with respect to whether there was a family life between the child and her father. It is in the circumstances where there is a birth parent involved difficult to conclude that was not so. The best interests of the child seemed to have been confined in the analysis to the situation of the mother and whilst I bear in mind what was said in EV (Philippines) at [60] there is a difference here in that it appears that the father did have the right to remain in the United Kingdom. There will therefore be a severing of that family relationship. In the circumstances therefore I am satisfied that the judge did err in failing to have proper regard to the child's best interests and properly to analyse what that involved particularly in light of the contact with the father who it was not in dispute before the judge had the right to remain in the United Kingdom. For these reasons I consider that the decision did involve the making of an error of law.

I am satisfied also that the decision is material given that it cannot properly be said that the result would have been the same. Further, it appears that on the facts as found by Judge Ross with respect to the child's father that she may indeed have a right to remain in the United Kingdom given that she would appear prima facie to be a family member of an EEA national. As her father is married to an EEA national she would therefore appear to fall within Regulation 7 of the Immigration (European Economic) Area Regulations 2006. As the position of the daughter appears to be substantially different from as it appeared to Judge Ross and there would need to be an extensive additional fact-finding, I am satisfied that on the particular facts of this case it would be appropriate for the matter to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.

Summary of conclusions

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error of law. I set it aside.

The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh determination on all issues.

Signed Date: 10 September 2015

Upper Tribunal Judge Rintoul

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Immigration cases

UI2025004453

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025004453

UI2025003987

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025003987

UI2025004274

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025004274

UI2025005447

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025005447

UI2025001383

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025001383

JR2024LON001256

[2026] UKAITUR JR2024LON001256

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.