Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1427 (22 July 2015)

Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1427 (22 July 2015)

Permission to appeal is granted only on the ground that the Upper Tribunal may have erred in its approach to the proportionality exercise and in not hearing live evidence, given factual differences and tension between tribunal findings. No permission is given to argue that the First Tier Tribunal did not err in law.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1427
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Imran Asif Ali; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted in part
Legal Topics
Deportation, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Material Error of Law
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Deportation Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Material Error of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Asif Ali

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in its approach to the proportionality exercise under Article 8 ECHR when re-making the deportation decision
  2. 2 Whether the Upper Tribunal should have heard live evidence due to factual differences and tension between tribunal findings

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted only on the ground that the Upper Tribunal may have erred in its approach to the proportionality exercise and in not hearing live evidence, given factual differences and tension between tribunal findings. No permission is given to argue that the First Tier Tribunal did not err in law.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal confined to whether the Upper Tribunal erred in its approach to proportionality and in not hearing live evidence.