IA174482014

The Appellant ( the Secretary of State ) appealed with permission granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Chohan on 2 March 2015 against the decision and reasons of First-tier Tribunal Judge Finch who had allowed the Respondent �s appeal against the Appellant �s decision dated 18 March 2014 to refuse to grant the Respondent leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules and/or under Article 8 ECHR and to remove him from the United Kingdom. The decision and reasons was promulgated on 19 January 2015.

The Respondent is a national of Sri Lanka , born there on 23 December 1998. He had entered the United Kingdom as a student, his father�s dependant, on 6 August 2006. His immigration history is set out in full at [1] of Judge Finch�s decision and reasons. The present appeal was against the Removal Directions dated 18 March 2014 issued under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, following refusal of the Respondent �s application made on 5 November 2013 for leave to remain in his own right on the basis that the Respondent had lived in the United Kingdom for more than seven years.

Judge Finch allowed the appeal under the Immigration Rules and made no mention of the claim made under Article 8 ECHR: see [12] of her decision. Exactly what her decision was, it has to be said, is unclear. It seems her intention was to allow that appeal under paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv), resulting in limited leave to remain to the Respondent .

Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal as sought by the Appellant was granted by Judge Chohan because she considered that it was arguable that the judge had failed to consider whether it would be reasonable to expect the Respondent to leave the United Kingdom, which was part of paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv). The judge had given no reasons as to why it would not be reasonable to expect the Respondent to leave the United Kingdom. The issue had simply not been addressed.

Mr Avery for the Secretary of State submitted that this was a clear case of legal error, as the grant of permission to appeal by the First-tier Tribunal indicated. There was no mention of the reasonableness test. The judge had evidently misconstrued the rule and so had missed an essential point. No relevant findings had been made.