VA189562013

At the end of the hearing I gave my decision that the decision and reasons statement of First-tier Tribunal Judge Lal contained legal errors such that it had to be set aside and remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh. I reserved my reasons, which I now give.

The judge allowed the appeal, finding the decision was not in accordance with the immigration rules because he was satisfied Mr Khan intended to leave at the end of his proposed visit. This had been the sole reason for refusal. The judge also found that Mr Khan�s family life was not respected by the decision because it prevented family reconciliation following difficulties that arose from his brother, the sponsor, marrying outside the family.

Mr Jafar sought to defend the judge's findings but could only do so by reference to evidence and arguments not mentioned by the judge. This approach merely confirms that there is inadequate reasoning and the statement must be set aside.

Mr Jafar sought to preserve the findings relating to Mr Khan�s intention to leave the UK. I have decided that is not appropriate because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to the immigration rules relating to visitors and to preserve this finding would suggest that it had some jurisdiction after all. In addition insofar as the issue of intention to leave might be relevant to the human rights issues, it will be for the next judge to decide whether such a finding will be necessary at all.

I refer to the next judge having to decide because in the circumstances I have described, the judge having made significant procedural and other legal errors, the only proper course of action is for the appeal has to be remitted for hearing afresh.