AA/10928/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 6 Oct 2016
• Promulgation date: 6 Oct 2016
• Publication date: 30 Jul 2018
• Last updated on: 30 Jul 2018

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/10928/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6th October 2016
On 6th October 2016


Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

YONAS [A]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr R Bednarek (instructed by Immigration Advice Service (Manchester))
For the Respondent: Mr A McVeety (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)


DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Appellant in relation to a Decision and Reasons of Judge R D Taylor promulgated on 30th December 2015 by which he dismissed the Appellant's asylum and humanitarian protection claim.

2. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the First-tier Tribunal may have acted unfairly in proceeding to deal with the appeal in the Appellant's absence given that he had not been served with notice of hearing.

3. In his application seeking permission to appeal the Appellant indicated that he had never received notice of either the case management review hearing or the substantive hearing. When he first claimed asylum he was at a temporary address but has been at his current address since March 2015. Indeed, the SEF correctly gives his current address. However, his then solicitors, Blavo & Co used the old address on the notice of appeal.

4. Between his giving notice of appeal and the hearing Blavo & Co were closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Accordingly, therefore there were no solicitors to receive the notice of hearing and the Appellant himself did not receive it, it having been sent by the Tribunal to his previous address. No fault can lie with the Tribunal as that was the address provided on the notice of appeal. It seems that the fault lies squarely with his former representatives.

5. Indeed there is evidence on the file that a friend of the Appellant's emailed the Tribunal to the effect that they were using an old address and giving the new one. Unfortunately, as he was not identified as a representative the Tribunal was not able to act on his instruction.

6. It might have been prudent of the Judge dealing with the appeal, when there was no attendance by the Appellant, to check with the Home Office Presenting Officer that both the Tribunal and the Home Office had the same address for the Appellant. However, he did not do so and I attach no blame to the Judge for that.

7. However, it is clear that there was procedural unfairness in proceeding to deal with the appeal in the Appellant's absence in the circumstances. The procedural unfairness amounts to an error of law such that the First-tier Tribunal's decision is set aside.

8. As the Appellant has not had the opportunity of putting his case to the First-tier Tribunal it is appropriate that the appeal is remitted to that Tribunal for a full rehearing.
Decision

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a full rehearing.

There having been no application for an anonymity order I do not make one.


Signed Date 6th October 2016
Upper Tribunal Judge Martin