Strangely, although the case of R (on the application of Gabor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reg 29AA: interpretation) UKUT 287, was promulgated on 25 October 2016, it appears to have only been published on 12 July 2017 by the Upper Tribunal. A delay of 8months- even more perplexing as the judgment itself is relatively short.
As to the effect of the decision, for practical purposes, it does not matter whether the temporary admission application considered in Gabor was under the now redundant 2006 EEA Regulations via Regulation 29AA or Regulation 41 of the new 2016 Regulations.
The Court of Appeal could not help but observe that the case presented the unusual situation where both the Appellant and the Secretary of State agreed that there was an error in the Country Guidance Case, AA (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG  UKUT 544 (IAC).
The parties agreed before the Court of Appeal that the appeal should be allowed albeit on a narrow ground.
Disappointingly in this case, the First Tier Tribunal permitted itself to be persuaded by the Home Office to grant permission to appeal in relation to an Immigration Judge’s decision allowing the Appellant’s Article 8 appeal.
Ironically, the same Home Office Guidance on private life which the Secretary of State relied upon and which formed the basis of grant of permission, was utilized to the Appellant’s benefit in the Upper Tribunal – although neither the presenting officer nor myself at the First Tier Tribunal hearing referred to it all. The Immigration Judge made no reference to the guidance in her decision when allowing the Appellant’s appeal.
I have always admired and continue to admire the various Zimbabwean focused human rights and civil society organisations active in protest in the UK advocating for positive change in Zimbabwe. Whether or not the UK based activity emanates from well-established groups, newly formed ones or even via emergence of social media based activity, the efforts are admirable nonetheless.
The conjoined appeals in Ahmed had their origins in a series of decisions made by the Secretary of State proposing to deprive the Appellants of their British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Within the course of the appeals however, the Upper Tribunal had to consider the content of the duty owed by the Secretary of State under section 55(1) of the 2009 Act in the Appellant’s cases.