![[2023] UKUT 00162 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
Drawing together those two strands, the Judge has made the following errors
Drawing together those two strands, the Judge has made the following errors.
First, the Judge erred in finding that the Appellant could not be a primary carer because he shares responsibility for [P]’s care with [J]. We did not hear full argument in relation to Regulation 16(8). We note that it might be said that [J] has a right of abode in the UK (as a British citizen), and is therefore herself an “exempt person”. That was not however part of the Judge’s reasoning. He appears to have considered that the Appellant could not be a primary carer if there were shared responsibility and his reasons are unclear. The Judge treated as determinative the fact that [P] has another carer when finding that the Appellant could not be a primary carer and failed to make a finding on the evidence (as set out at [5] of the Decision) whether in fact the necessary relationship of dependency is made out.
- Heading
- PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
- FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- JURISDICTION
- THE APPELLANT’S CASE
- NOTICE OF DECISION
- Before
- The Appellant appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge N M Paul promulgated 21 December 2021 (“the Decision”). By the Decision, the Judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal against the
- The Appellant appealed on essentially three grounds which can be summarised as follows
- DISCUSSION We begin with the second of the Appellant’s grounds. That and the terms of the grant of permission appear to have led the Respondent to consider that this appeal might have wider implications arising
- The judgment of Mostyn J in Akinsanya was appealed to the Court of Appeal ( [2022] EWCA Civ 37 ). The Court of Appeal accepted that, under EU law, the Secretary of State was entitled to exclude from a
- We accept that the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Velaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 767 (“ Velaj ”) might have some bearing on this appeal but not for the reasons that
- Judge Paul’s findings are to be found at [8] and [9] of the Decision as follows
- We take the first and third of the Appellant’s grounds together as we consider that they overlap Prior to its revocation, Regulation 16 read as follows so far as relevant
- In Patel , the Supreme Court said the following about the test which applies where more than one person shares the care of a child
- Drawing together those two strands, the Judge has made the following errors
- Second, and flowing from that, as the Supreme Court in Patel made clear, the test whether a British Citizen (child) will be required to leave requires consideration of what the factual position will b
- Returning to the second ground, the Judge appears to have thought that the fact of the Appellant having leave to remain “excluded him from being considered under the EEA Regulations”. The fact that an
- We discussed with the parties what should happen next. Mrs Nolan had suggested that it might be necessary for the Respondent to file a detailed skeleton argument based on Akinsanya and Velaj . However
- CONCLUSION
- Conclusions