United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER	Case No: UI-2025-000338
	First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/57391/2024 LP/09479/2024

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

 

On 3 ^rd of April 2025

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BARTLETT

 

Between

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant

and

 

MR OLADINDE LOOKMAN OYEBOLU

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr Afza, IIAS Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr Wain, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

Heard at Field House on 26 March 2025

 

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1.               I will refer to the parties by the names used in the First-tier Tribunal Decision.

2.               The appellant made an asylum claim, which was rejected by the respondent. The appellant appealed the respondent's refusal and it came before the First-tier Tribunal for a hearing on 25 November 2024. In a decision dated 11 December 2024 the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal rejected the appellant's Refugee Convention and related claims but allowed the claim in relation to Article 8 ECHR outside the Rules.

3.               The case comes before me following an application for permission to appeal by the respondent, which was dated 18 December 2024. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 23 January 2025 on all grounds. These grounds were limited to Article 8 ECHR only. There is no challenge to the decision in relation to the Refugee Convention, Humanitarian Protection and articles 2 and 3 ECHR.

Submissions

4.               Mr Wain, for the Home Office, set out that the grounds relied on by the respondent all fall under one heading which is that there was a material misdirection in law in relation to Article 8 ECHR. In summary, the judge improperly assessed the Article 8 ECHR factors and attached weight to private life when the appellant had no leave and this was an incorrect application of Section 117B of the 2002 Act.

5.               Mr Afza submitted that the judgment took into account all the relevant factors and made a decision on proportionality that was open to the judge. He set out that paragraphs 51 to 55 set out all the correct tests that the judge had to apply and the judge had these in mind when making his decision.

6.               Decision

7.               I have carefully considered the judgment. I find that from paragraph 47 onwards the judge sets out the tests that are required to be applied in a case involving article 8 ECHR issues. Specific reference is made to Section 117B of the 2002 Act at paragraphs 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the judgment. The judge also goes on to adopt the balance sheet approach.

8.               At paragraph 59 the judge made findings referring to the appellant's activities as a pastor and letters of support, which include that he plays a crucial role in counselling.

9.               The judge also made a specific finding in paragraph 61 that if the appellant were required to leave the United Kingdom it would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences and gave brief reasons citing the length of the time of residence in the United Kingdom, his employment as a carer and his significant role as a pastor.

10.           The judge found that the appellant could not satisfy the Immigration Rules and there was no finding that the appellant had a family life in the United Kingdom so this was entirely private life outside the Immigration Rules.

11.           Applying 117B of the 2002 Act requires that the appellant's private life is given little weight. The judgement identified that the following three factors were the material parts of the appellant's private life: the length of time in the United Kingdom, the appellant's employment as a carer and his role as a pastor. The judge found that these three factors created unjustifiable harsh consequences.

12.           I find that if the judge had applied section 117B of the 2002 Act correctly and given little weight to the private life factors he would not have been able to conclude that there were unjustifiably harsh consequences and he would not have been able to conclude that the appellant's Article 8 rights were outweighed by the public interest or that the respondent's decision was disproportionate. In those circumstances, I find that there has been a material misdirection in relation to Section 117B of the 2002 Act and therefore I find that there is an error of law. It is a material error of law.

13.           I have decided to remit the case for a remittal hearing in respect of the Article 8 ECHR issues only to the Upper Tribunal. The findings in relation to the Refugee Convention, Humanitarian Protection and articles two and three ECHR are preserved. Paragraphs 1 -58 are preserved.

Rule15(2)(a) Application

14.           Mr Afza made an application under Rule 15(2)(a) of the Upper Tribunal's Rules for permission to admit two documents which he said set out that Mr Oyebolu was at some time given permission to work. These are documents that were not before the First-tier Tribunal. They are not in the bundle that has been prepared for this case. At the start of the hearing I asked if there were any housekeeping matters to be discussed and Mr Afza said no. The issue was only raised after the completion of the Home Office submissions, which is an extremely late stage. I asked why there has been such a delay in providing this document, which would be under the control of the appellant. The First-tier Tribunal decision was made on 11 December 2024 and we are now at the end of March, so there has been many months for this document to be provided. No good reasons for the delay have been provided.

15.           I have given consideration to the overriding objective, balancing the interests of all the parties, the need to be proportionate and to consider the prejudice to each party. I have decided to exclude the evidence today because of the extremely late attempt to submit it, the lack of reasons for this lateness and it was not considered by the First-tier Tribunal.

Anonymity

16.           As the appellant's protection claim has been rejected, there is no reason to continue the anonymity order and I discharge the anonymity order.

 

J Bartlett

 

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

 

31 March 2025