 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> EA018542018 [2019] UKAITUR EA018542018 (1 February 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2019/EA018542018.html Cite as: [2019] UKAITUR EA18542018, [2019] UKAITUR EA018542018 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/01854/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House On 23 rd January 2019 |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 1 st February 2019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER
Between
URMILA PRAKASH SOLANKI
Appellant
And
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Ms A Patyna, instructed by UK Immigration Services
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. First-tier Tribunal Judge Beg dismissed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the respondent to refuse her a residence card as a family member of an EU national exercising Treaty Rights, in a decision promulgated on 15 th October 2018.
2. Permission to appeal was granted on the grounds, in brief, that the First-tier Tribunal judge although referring to the case of Lim [2013] EWCA Civ 1383, she had failed to address the evidence before her, failed to make adequate reasoned findings and had failed to apply the test laid down in Lim.
3. It is difficult to ascertain in this decision how the judge has considered the evidence in the context of the test she is required to apply. Her conclusion that although the appellant lives with the EU national and his wife, it was not credible that she was solely financially dependent, upon them is unsupported by any or any adequate reasoning.
4. Although there were findings in relation to various family members it is unclear from the decision what relevance those findings were, given the lack of reasoning.
5. The First-tier Tribunal judge erred in law such that I set aside the decision to be remade.
6. The lack of adequate reasoning in this case necessitates a hearing de novo with no findings preserved. I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be afresh.
Conclusions:
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I set aside the decision and remit it to the First-tier Tribunal.
Date 23 rd January 2019
Upper Tribunal Judge Coker