OA185012013

Although the Secretary of State�s is, strictly, the appellant in this appeal, I have for the sake of consistency, retained the First-tier Tribunal designations. The Secretary of State is accordingly called the respondent in this decision.

The appellant is a 17 year old citizen of Pakistan who has appealed against the Entry Clearance Officer�s decision dated 26 th August 2013 refusing her leave to enter and settle in the United Kingdom as an adopted child of her UK sponsor or, alternatively, as a dependent relative of her sponsor. The refusal decision made it clear that the Entry Clearance Officer did not accept that the appellant met the requirements of any of the relevant Immigration Rules.

In a decision promulgated on 10 November 2014 First-tier Tribunal Judge Majid allowed the appeal. It would seem � although it is by no means clear � that he purported to do so both under the Immigration Rules and under Article 8 of the ECHR.

The Secretary of State has appealed the decision. The grounds essentially argue that the judge failed to give any or adequate reasons for his decision, that he failed to analyse or appropriately apply the law in respect of Article 8 and failed to apply Section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014. The grounds also argue that Judge Majid at [15] appears to indicate that he is exercising discretion when any such discretion may properly be exercised only by the respondent.

I have read, with some dismay, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. It is almost incomprehensible as to its reasoning. It could be said that paragraphs 15-17 (which together constitute about one-third of the whole decision) are completely irrelevant and inappropriate. They are also largely wrong in law.