First Tier Judge Refuse HO Permission to Appeal to the Upper

?????????? Base on the below information what Residence Permit will be issued - EEA4 Application??????????

Decision by: Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (JUDGE)

In the matter of an application for permission to appeal

Appellant's name: (ME)

Application by Respondent (HO)

Permission to appeal refused

REASONS FOR DECISION (including any decision on extending time)

1. In a Determination promulgated on (DD) (MM) 2014 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (JUGDE NAME) allowed the Appellant's appeal on Article 8 human rights grounds against the Respondent's decision to refuse to issue a permanent residence card.

2. Although the Respondent argued before the Judge that Article 8 did not arise for consideration on an appeal against such a decision, the grounds on which permission to appeal is sought do not challenge the fact that the Judge did consider Article 8.

3. The grounds submit that the Judge erred in that he did not follow Gulshan and Nagre and did not give adequate reasons for finding that the Appellant's circumstances were exceptional or compelling.

4. The Judge correctly directed himself in paragraph (NUMBER) of the Determination. Whilst he did not identify in that paragraph the circumstances that he considered justified consideration of Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules nevertheless those circumstances are apparent from his subsequent consideration of Article 8.

5. It is not arguable that the Judge did not give adequate reasons for finding that the Appellant's removal would be disproportionate. The grounds submit that he did not give reasons for finding that the removal of the Appellant would sever his relationship with his partner and their children but that is self evident given the unchallenged finding that it would not be reasonable for them to accompany him to (MY COUNTRY). It is submitted that the Judge failed to make findings as to whether his partner could care for the children without him, if need be with social assistance, as to why he could not maintain contact with them by "modern methods of communication" and as to why he could not apply for entry clearance to return. None of these submissions is arguable. They all run counter to the established principles on which Article 8 family life cases are to be considered.

?????????? Base on the above information what Residence Permit will be issued ??????????

It looks like you won your FTT appeal on Article 8 grounds against the HO decision to refuse the issue to you of an EEA4. On top of that it seems the HO has subsequently been refused permission to appeal against the FTT decision - the HO's argument that Article 8 grounds is not justified has been rejected. Be expecting your EEA4 soon.

rosebead wrote:It looks like you won your FTT appeal on Article 8 grounds against the HO decision to refuse the issue to you of an EEA4. On top of that it seems the HO has subsequently been refused permission to appeal against the FTT decision - the HO's argument that Article 8 grounds is not justified has been rejected. Be expecting your EEA4 soon.

Thank for your prompt response its really helpfully

I don't think you succeed with EEA4. You succeeded in regards to Article 8, perhaps you have established private or family life.

You will not get PR, probably 30 months leave under the immigration rules.

1. In a Determination promulgated on (DD) (MM) 2014 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (JUGDE NAME) allowed the Appellant's appeal on Article 8 human rights grounds against the Respondent's decision to refuse to issue a permanent residence card.

It's just the wording above suggests that he has won his appeal against the Home Office's decision to not issue him with a permanent residence card. I don't know what kind of a leave is usually granted for Article 8 ECHR, so Obie may be right.

The Judge may allow the appeal on grounds which differ from the original application type, in this scenario instead of allowing PR, allowing leave to remain as the parent of a child in the UK.

I accept that leave can be granted on other grounds (although I don't know what kind of leave is usually granted to Article 8 ECHR cases) but I guess the wording of the judge makes it sound like the claimant won his claim against the Home Office for not issuing him with a Permanent Residence card, when more accurately it should just simply have said that the claimant won his appeal under Article 8 ECHR grounds, full stop. Call me a pedant.

No, because the HO did refuse PR thus what is written is correct.

Presumably the appellant asked for leave to remain under Article 8 ECHR grounds, separate from asking for PR confirmation. Thus separate grounds falling under two totally different application categories as you said. So, naturally, you might expect a Judgment to say that the appeal has either been allowed on Article 8 ECHR grounds (for a right to residence), or that the appeal was allowed against a decision to issue the Permanent Residence card, because these are separate arguments asking for different things. I thought law in practice was very pedantic in the usage of the English language unless I'm mistaken? Reading from the perspective of a pedant of the English language, in the first point above in the pasted text, it "literally" says that the appeal was allowed against the decision to issue a Permanent Residence card (not saying that is the case but that is the wording), which reads to me quite literally that the PR card decision was wrong.

That said, it would appear that the poster will not get a Permanent Residence Card after all, since it appears a leave to remain under Article 8 ECHR is not accepted for a PR confirmation.

No, the judge is required to consider whether refusing any leave would interfere (disproportionately) with Article 8 of the Convention. It's not the case of two applications being submitted but that refusing leave would breach Article 8, thus leave must be granted.

In the OP's case the HO tried to argue that the FTT Judge should have discussed what compelling reasons meant that Article 8 leave should be granted. It's technical but all related to the July 2012 introduction of Family/Private life leave and the scrapping of DLR.

Thanks for all your comment i guess i will have to wait and see what they will give me, their the government at the end of the day.