Rai & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Grounds of Appeal - Limited Grant of Permission)

What was at stake

The appeal concerns the limited grant of permission to remain in the UK for the applicants.

What happened

Kiran Rai's application for entry clearance as the adult dependent child of a former Gurkha was refused. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal, finding no ongoing family life with his deceased father, and limited emotional ties with his mother and sister.

What the court decided

The Upper Tribunal gave reported guidance that grounds of appeal must clearly and succinctly identify each arguable error of law as a numbered ground, with sufficient particularity (referencing the relevant passages, legislation and authority) and only where the error is material to the outcome; excessively long, unfocused grounds "serve to conceal rather than illuminate." On limited grants of permission, where a First-tier judge restricts permission to discrete grounds the judge must state this clearly and expressly and give reasons for refusing the other grounds, and the Upper Tribunal should not be artificially constrained where grounds are interconnected and material to the result. Applying this, the Tribunal widened permission for both appellants (adding grounds two and three for Rai, given the overlap with the arguable first ground on the immigration rules and Article 8; granting grounds (a), (b), (e) and (f) for DAM and refusing (c), (d) and (g)) and directed that the appeals be listed separately to decide whether the First-tier decisions were infected by a material error of law.

How the court got there

The court decided to widen the grounds of appeal because the First-tier Tribunal's decision was potentially affected by a material error of law. The Upper Tribunal emphasized the need for grounds of appeal to be clearly identified and interconnected grounds should not be artificially constrained if they are material to the outcome.

Categories

Authoritative link