IA001882013

This appeal is subject to an anonymity direction under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead directly or indirectly to the appellant�s children being identified. The appellant and any member of his family should only be referred to by the initials used in this determination.

The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. In a determination promulgated on 7 March 2013, Judge McLachlan dismissed the appellant�s appeal. The Judge found that the appellant�s removal (together with his wife and three children) would not breach Article 8 of the ECHR. Following the initial refusal of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by the First-tier Tribunal, on 2 May 2013 the Upper Tribunal (UTJ Latter) granted the appellant permission to appeal on the basis that the Judge may have erred in law:

�In her assessment of where the best interests of the children lay and how they weighed in the balance along with other relevant factors against the interest of immigration control as an aspect of one or more of the legitimate aims within Article 8(2).�

The appeal first came before me on 4 July 2013. In a decision dated 12 July 2013, I concluded that the First-tier Tribunal�s decision did involve the making of an error of law in that the Judge had not adequately dealt with the �best interests� of the appellant�s children (in particular �A�) in reaching her finding that the appellant�s removal would be proportionate. As a consequence, I set aside that decision and directed that the appeal should be relisted before me to remake the decision in respect of Article 8. The appeal was listed for a resumed hearing on 14 August 2013.

At the outset of the hearing, on the appellant�s application, and without objection from Mr Deller who represented the respondent, I admitted into evidence a number of documents not previously before the First-tier Tribunal under rule 15(2A) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. Ms Jegarajah also sought permission to rely upon additional grounds namely that the appellant met the requirements of Appendix FM in particular, on the basis that two of his children (�A� and �Y1�) had resided in the UK for a continuous period of seven years so that EX.1 applied.