VA197092013

The Appellant in this case is the Secretary of State who was the Respondent before the First-tier Tribunal. When the subject of the immigration decision, the Respondent before me, was the Appellant. For ease of reference I shall refer to the parties as the Secretary of State and the claimant respectively.

The Secretary of State appeals the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, Judge Harmes, who in a determination promulgated on 3 rd July 2014 allowed this 64 year old male Sri Lankan claimant�s appeal against the refusal of entry clearance as a visitor.

The judge allowed the appeal on the basis that all of the disputed requirements of paragraph 41: intention to conduct a short visit and return to Sri Lanka, maintenance and accommodation were all, contrary to the findings of the Entry Clearance Officer, satisfied on the oral and documentary evidence. The judge made no findings or decision in respect of Article 8 ECHR family and private life rights.

The matter proceeded before me on the basis of submissions, there having been no application to adduce additional evidence.

I find that on the face of the decision the judge failed to appreciate that restricted rights of appeal operate in this case so that there was no jurisdiction to allow the appeal on Immigration Rules grounds. The Grounds of Appeal before the judge were framed in the context of the Convention ground at s 84(1)(c) of the 2002 Act. Accordingly Article 8 was the ground that the judge needed to determine. The decision reveals errors of law both in allowing the appeal on Immigration Rules grounds and failing to deal with the Article 8 ground. I consider what to do about the error.