Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
On 4 th February 2014 a decision was made to remove the Appellant from the UK. The Appellant appealed against that decision. The appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Ransley sitting at Manchester on 23 rd June 2014. In a determination promulgated on 30 th June 2014 the Appellant�s appeal was allowed under the Immigration Rules.
The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal. There were two Grounds of Appeal. Firstly it was contended there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, secondly the judge had made a material misdirection in law without referring to the authority of Sabir (Appendix FM � EX.1 not freestanding) [2014] UKUT 63 (IAC) all of provisions of Appendix FM.
It is on that basis that the appeal comes before me. The Secretary of State appears by her Home Office Presenting Officer Mr McVeety. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State and for the purpose of continuity throughout legal proceedings Mr Shahbaz is herein described as the Appellant and the Secretary of State as the Respondent. Mr Shahbaz appears by his instructing solicitor Mr Pratt. Mr Pratt is familiar with this matter having appeared before the First-tier Tribunal and also by being the author of the Rule 24 response.
Mr McVeety submits that the First-tier Tribunal Judge did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that I should find that there has been therefore a material error of law and set aside the decision. He comments (and I agree) that no criticism can be levelled at the First-tier Tribunal Judge and that it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State to draw this matter to her attention. Mr Pratt acknowledges that the jurisdictional point is well made, and does not seek to go behind his Rule 24 response.
Areas of legislative interpretation, failure to follow binding authority or to distinguish it with adequate reasons, ignoring material considerations by taking into account immaterial consideration, reaching irrational conclusions on fact or evaluation or to give legally inadequate reasons for the decision and procedural unfairness, constitute errors of law.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.