Client purposes

TALLINN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Faculty of Social Sciences

Tallinn Law School

Anni Säär

Case Analysis of [2010] UKUT 478 (IAC)

2^nd Assignment

Tallinn 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. General view.. 3

1.1 Background. 3

1.2 Wordings. 3

1.3 Client purposes. 4

1.4 Main activities list. 4

1.5 Main object list. 5

1.6 Events list. 5

1.7 Actors list. 6

1.8 Info demand list. 6

2. The case purposes. 7

3. The case functional view.. 8

3.1 Package diagram.. 8

3.2 Use cases. 8

3.3 Use Case diagrams. 9

4. The case object view.. 9

4.1 Object semantics. 9

5. Time view of the case. 10

5.1 Activity diagram.. 10

5.2 Case sequence diagram.. 11

5.3 State diagram.. 11

General view

Background

The case is coming from United Kingdom and Commonwealth Case Law Upper Tribunal (UKUT) Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC). The Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) is a superior court of record and forms part of the Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. Its purpose is to hear and decide appeals against decisions made by the First-tier Tribunal in matters of immigration, asylum and nationality.

The case is about JO, PO, BO and BO who appealed the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department refusing their application for a residence card, which they had applied as the daughters of an European Economic Area (EEA) national (father MO) exercising Treaty rights. The father of the appellants holds both Nigerian and Italian nationality as he had married an Italian national in 1993 (and divorced in 2001). The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that they believed MO`s marriage was a sham (as he had never lived in Italy) and MO`s alleged daughters might not be his (as the birth certificates had been obtained very long time after the birth of these children and the DNA profiling report was not satisfactory evidence in their eyes as there were no proof that the samples were taken from the right persons). As the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal they therefore made an appeal to UTIAC. Permission to appeal to this Tribunal was given on 3 September 2010.

UTIAC found that it was inappropriate for the public authorities in the United Kingdom to seek to investigate the circumstances of a marriage that had been recognised by the authorities of another Member State and to question whether the grant of Italian citizenship was valid. They added that although little weight could be given to birth certificates DNA analysis was properly admissible. Therefore they decided that residence cards should be granted to appellants.

Wordings

MO was married to EEA national.

MO retained Italian nationality.

MO divorced his wife (EEA national).

MO has 4 daughters.

MO`s daughters applied for residence card.

Secretary of State for the Home Department requested birth certificates.

MO and his daughters didn`t answered to request.

Secretary of State for the Home Department refused to release residence card.

MO`s daughters appealed to First-tier Tribunal.

MO`s daughters provided birth certificates and DNA profiling report.

First-tier Tribunal concluded MO`s marriage was a sham.

First-tier Tribunal concluded that MO got his Italian nationality by sham.

First-tier Tribunal concluded that MO`s daughters might not be his.

First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

MO`s daughters appealed to UTIAC.

UTIAC gave permission to appeal.

UTIAC concluded that UK can`t decide upon MO`s nationality or marriage.

UTIAC concluded that MO`s daughters might be his.

UTIAC ruled that residence cards should be given to MO`s daughters.

Client purposes

Clients (JO, PO, BO and BO) purposes were to have a residence card in UK.

They thought they had right to have a residence card as their father was an EEA national. Purposes to appeal to UTIAC was that in case UTIAC finds that the Secretary of State for the Home Department and First-tier Tribunal made wrong conclusions then they can receive their residence card.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14