Tribunal decisions

The decision

UPPER Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/01264/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at: Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On: 31 October 2016
On: 29 November 2016

Before

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Mailer

Between

Ms jekaterina domnych
no anonymity direction made
Appellant
and

secretary of state for the home department
Respondent

Representation
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr S Staunton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 30 March 2016, dismissing her appeal against the respondent's decision refusing her application for the issue of a permanent residence card pursuant to Regulation 15 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 ("the 2006 Regulations").
2. The appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal as a paper case. The appellant did not appear and was not represented.
3. The Judge noted that the documents before him "are few". Neither party provided an appeal bundle. The documents before him were confined to a decision notice, the explanatory letter written with it, two photocopies of passports, two European Health Insurance cards and a short letter from the appellant. In addition there was the notice and grounds of appeal.
4. The Judge accordingly found that "? she had not begun to demonstrate any period of continuous residence, let alone that such residence was in accordance with the Regulations" [10].
5. In granting permission to appeal, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor noted that it was apparent that the First-tier Judge did not have sight of the large appeal bundle which the unrepresented appellant appeared to have sent in to the First-tier Tribunal. It was accordingly arguable that there was an error in law from the failure to have regard to all of the relevant evidence, albeit that it was not the First-tier Tribunal Judge's fault.
6. The appellant appeared in person before the Upper Tribunal. She stated that she had submitted all the necessary documents to the First-tier Tribunal as well as the respondent. Both copies were sent via recorded Royal Mail delivery on 15 March 2016. She has produced the relevant receipts showing that the documents were sent by her on time and were signed for on receipt as per the Royal Mail tracking system.
7. I have had regard to the extensive bundle of documents that were sent by the appellant to the First-tier Tribunal.
8. There is a Hatton Cross stamp on the bundle of document sent by the appellant showing that the Tribunal received the documents on 22 March 2016. The documents had also been sent to the Arnhem Support Centre, and were received there on 17 March 2016.
9. The appeal was assigned to the Judge on 24 March 2016.
10. It is unfortunate that the documents were not placed before the First-tier Judge whose decision, based upon the absence of documents, is entirely understandable.
11. However, Mr Staunton has very properly conceded at the outset that in the circumstances, there has been a procedural irregularity such that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge should be set aside and re-made. The appellant agreed.
12. The parties agreed that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be re-made as the appellant has not had an adequate opportunity of having her case properly assessed.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside
The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (Hatton Cross) for a fresh decision to be made. At present there is no agreed hearing date, which accordingly will have to be arranged.
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 26 November 2016
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge C R Mailer