Butt (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0077

Parties

Appellant(s)

Artesham Butt

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

The Upper Tribunal held that the First-Tier Tribunal made several errors of law in allowing an applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refuse the appellant’s application for leave to remain. Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the Upper Tribunal’s decision?

Facts

Mr Artesham Butt (“the Appellant”) is a citizen of Pakistan. He entered the United Kingdom in 2006 on a ‘visit visa’ which was valid until June 2006. The Appellant overstayed for many years. In 2016, the Appellant made an application for leave to remain on the basis of his article 8 rights to private family life, pursuant to the European Convention for Human Rights (“the ECHR”) (“the first application”). The Respondent refused the application. The Appellant unsuccessfully appealed against that decision. On 4 May 2021, the Appellant made a fresh application for leave to remain as an unmarried partner (“the second application”). On 30 December 2021, the Secretary of State refused the application. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (“the FtT”). The FtT allowed his appeal on 24 June 2022. The FtT held that, whilst there was a public interest in removing the Appellant due to his past immigration history, this was outweighed by competing factors including the fact that the Appellant’s partner should not be expected to move to Pakistan to continue family life with him. The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (“the UT”). On 17 October 2023, the UT allowed the appeal of the Secretary of State. The UT held that the FtT erred in law by allowing the Appellant’s appeal because the FtT’s approach ignored several material developments in the law on article 8 ECHR in immigration cases. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (“CA”). On 28 February 2025, the CA dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. The CA upheld the UT’s decision that the FtT erred in law. The Appellant now applies for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.