IA165572013

For the Respondent: Mr A Pipe, Counsel instructed by Bassi Solicitors, Birmingham

On 17 October 2013, the Secretary of State was granted permission to appeal against the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Nixon that was promulgated on 14 August 2013. The Secretary of State argued that Judge Nixon had failed to give adequate reasons for finding that the immigration decision was not proportionate in respect of the appellant�s protected family life.

Mr Hussain relied on the grounds of appeal settled by his colleague, Mr David Neale on 20 August 2013. He did not pursue the arguments in the first paragraph, which related to private life rights. Instead, he focused on Mr Hamayan�s family life rights.

Mr Hussain argued that Judge Nixon failed to have regard to the fact that when Mr Hamayan applied to vary his leave to remain he did not rely on family life rights. This was unsurprising because at that time he was not in a relationship let alone married. Mr Hussain amplified this argument by pointing out that both Mr Hussain and his wife were aware that his immigration status was precarious. The failure of Judge Nixon to consider these issues meant that her findings and conclusions lacked adequate reasoning because these were material issues that had to be considered.

In conclusion, Mr Pipe argued that there was no need for a judge to give extensive reasons. In this case Judge Nixon had in essence found that Mr Hamayan would have met the requirements of the Immigration Rules at the date of decision (which because of transitional provisions were those in part 8 of HC395) and that the only reason for requiring him to leave the UK was to satisfy immigration formalities. It was never proportionate for a State to interfere with a person�s family life rights merely for bureaucratic reasons.