Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-03-16, AA/01519/2009 & Ors.
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 16 March 2015 |
| Published date | 02 June 2015 |
| Hearing Date | 12 February 2015 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Status | Unreported |
| Appeal Number | AA/01519/2009 & Ors. |
Appeal Number: AA/01519/2009 and others
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/01519/2009 and others
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Determination Promulgated |
|
On 9-13 and 17-18 September 2013 |
On 16 March 2015 |
|
9 January and 14 October 2014 and 12 February 2015 |
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JORDAN
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O’CONNOR
Between
MEHMOOD AHMED and others
Appellants
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellants: Ms. K. Cronin, Mr R. Toal, Mr D. Jones, Counsel, instructed by Wilson Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Mr D. Blundell, Mr A. Byass, Counsel, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
Index Paragraph
Introduction [1]
The issues [12]
The criminal conspiracy [13]
Immigration decisions under appeal
The determination of the First-tier Tribunal [26]
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal [38]
The preliminary issue - Ahmad and others (removal of children over 18) [40]
The error of law [48]
The nature of the offending – the role played by Mohammed Faruq [52]
Events in Srinagar and Jammu Kashmir, India [55]
Trafficking – the development of the claim [72]
Trafficking – the legal basis [83]
Our evaluation of this issue [94]
Conclusion on trafficking [116]
Section 10(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 [119]
Delay [139]
The appellants’ claim to benefit from the Secretary of State’s delay [145]
Our analysis of the effect of delay [168]
Delay by the Tribunal [184]
Inconsistency in decision-making [189]
The Zambrano issue [201]
The decision in Zambrano [206]
Decisions after Zambrano [211]
United Kingdom provisions – Zambrano principle [215]
Application of 2006 Regulations [219]
Abuse [241]
Derogation and the Zambrano right [258]
Qadir Ahmed and Nasreen Bi’s family [279]
Ghulam Rabani and Noreen Shakila’s family [287]
Rungzaib Mohamed and Jamila Kauser’s family [297]
Mehmood Ahmed and Fazal Jan’s family [316]
The evidence of the professional witnesses
Diane Jackson’s evidence
Rungzaib Mohamed and Jamila Kauser’s family [328]
Ghulam Rabani and Noreen Bi’s family [332]
Qadir Ahmed and Nasreen Bi’s family [333]
Mehmood Ahmed and Fazal Jan [335]
Johanna Huyg’s evidence [340]
Chloe Purcell’s evidence [353]
Sue Conlan’s evidence [356]
Kate Helsby’s evidence [361]
Paragraph 276ADE [368]
Article 8 and the new rules [386]
The assessment of proportionality [401]
Family life [408]
The legal principles [421]
Our assessment
General considerations [437]
General considerations - The oral evidence [439]
General considerations - The public interest [441]
Conclusions - The families
Qadir Ahmed and Nasreen Bi’s family [445]
Ghulam Rabani and Noreen Shakila’s family [464]
Rungzaib Mohamed and Jamila Kauser’s family [472]
Mehmood Ahmed and Fazal Jan’s family [482]
Decision [page 133]
The families.
[The date of birth of each child is shown in parenthesis and date of the removal decision in relation to the appellants is shown in square brackets]
Family 1 - Qadir Ahmed’s family
Parents (i) Qadir Ahmed [10 October 2008]
(ii) Nasreen Bi [10 October 2008]
Children (1) Toukeer Ahmed (1 August 1988) now aged 25 [10 October 2008]
(2) Tousif Ahmed* (10 February 1990) now aged 24 [5 May 2009]
(3) Sulva Bi (20 April 1994) now aged 20 [5 May 2009]
(4) Salma Bi (10 December 1998) now aged 15 [10 October 2008]
Family 2 - Ghulam Rabani’s family
Parents (i) Ghulam Rabani [10 October 2008]
(ii) Noreen Shakila Bi [10 October 2008]
Children (1) Mohammed Atif* (18 March 1986) now aged 28 [5 May 2009]
(2)Mobushra Begum* (2 October 1988) now aged 25 [5 May 2009]
(3)Farah Begum* (10 March 1990) now aged 24 [5 May 2009]
(4) Nusrat Bi (2 January 1987) now aged 27 [10 October 2008]
(5) Mohammed Rustam Rabani (1 November 1991) now aged 22
[24 April 2009]
(6) Zahra Bi (3 August 1993) now aged 20 [10 October 2008]
Family 3 - Rungzaib Mohamed’s family
Parents (i) Rungzaib Mohammed [10 October 2008]
(ii) Jamila Kauser [29 April 2009]
Children (1) Kamran (3 October 1985) now aged 28 [29 April 2009]
(2) Jehan* (3 January 1988) now aged 26 [5 May 2009]
(3) Ishrut* (12 January 1990) now aged 24 [5 May 2009]
(4) Idris (10 February 1993) now aged 21 [5 May 2009]
(5) Alam (6 January 1992) now aged 22 [29 April 2009]
(6) Hina Bi (20 May 1997) now aged 17 [29 April 2009]
Family 4 - Mehmood Ahmed’s family
Parents (i) Mehmood Ahmed [29 April 2009]
(ii) Fazal Jan [29 April 2009]
Children (1) Wasim (12 April 1993) now aged 21 [29 April 2009]
(2) Arfan (12 April 1993) now aged 21 [29 April 2009]
(3) Atteqa (4 May 1996) now aged 18 [29 April 2009]
(4) Adeel (25 June 1997) now aged 16 [29 April 2009]
(5) H (24 April 2004) now aged 10, a British citizen and therefore not an appellant in these proceedings
[* connotes an applicant in Ahmad and others (removal of children over 18) [2012] UKUT 00267(IAC)]
Introduction
-
This appeal concerns four families totalling 29 individuals, comprising four sets of parents and 21 children, both adult children and minors.
-
All are Pakistani citizens and inter-related either by blood or marriage or both. Each family obtained visit entry clearances in 2000 or 2001 as Pakistani nationals applying through the High Commissioner in Islamabad. Having arrived in the United Kingdom, each family claimed asylum on the basis that they were Indian nationals giving names, dates of birth and histories which differed from what had been presented to obtain the entry clearances. In particular, each family alleged that the parent was single and his or her spouse had been murdered by the Indian army.
-
Not all of the 29 family members are before us following the judgment of the Upper Tribunal (Collins J and Upper Tribunal Judge Coker) in Ahmad and others (removal of children over 18) [2012] UKUT 00267(IAC).
-
Neither the names of the individuals concerned, nor their dates of birth have remained consistent. Accordingly, the names attributed to the appellants and their respective dates of birth cannot be definitively stated but, for these purposes, the Tribunal will adopt both the names and the dates of birth that each appellant currently claims as his or her own. In the course of these proceedings, a schedule was produced, appropriately coloured, setting out the membership of the four families with which we are concerned and the respective claims that each member makes to one or more of the methods relied upon in resisting removal.
-
The issue before the Upper Tribunal in Ahmad and others (removal of children over 18) related to the lawfulness of removal decisions in relation to those appellants who had (a) leave to remain in the UK and (b) were over the age of 18 on the date of decision. As a result of the determination in Ahmad and others (removal of children over 18), the removal decisions made against the 6 appellants who fell into this classification were rendered unlawful. These six adult children now have leave to remain and we are told that one of them has now become a British citizen. The appellants before us, reduced by these six, comprise the parents and 14 of the 15 remaining children.
-
Ahmad and others (removal of children over 18) was heard on 10 May 2012 in relation to decisions made earlier. The appellants contend that another three children, having now reached 18, should benefit from the decision in Ahmad and others for the reasons we will explain.
-
These three children and eight others (making 11 in all) are now said to derive the benefit of paragraph 276ADE (iv) or...
To continue reading
Request your trial