EA/04889/2016

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 2 Dec 2016
• Promulgation date: 8 Dec 2016
• Publication date: 2 Feb 2021
• Last updated on: 2 Feb 2021

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/04889/2016


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 2 December 2016
On 8 December 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEKI?



Between

SAMUEL ASUAKO KWASI BOANUH
(anonymity order not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent
Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms S Sharma, Counsel, instructed by Justice and Law Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr T Melvin, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. This appeal was determined on the papers at the appellant's request by First-tier Tribunal Judge Troup. The complaint made by the appellant is that although he was given until 30 June 2016 to submit documentary evidence in support of his appeal, and indeed complied with the deadline, the appeal was determined prior to that date and his bundle was not therefore before the judge.
2. Ms Sharma repeated that complaint at the hearing and Me Melvin quite fairly did not seek to defend the judge's actions if it was the case that the appellant had the deadline claimed.

3. The Tribunal file shows that a letter was issued to the appellant and respondent by the Tribunal on 2 June 2016. The letter confirmed that the appeal was to be determined on the papers and that any further evidence from either side had to be sent to reach the Tribunal by 30 June 2016. The appellant's track and trace evidence shows that the bundle was received by the Tribunal on that date. However, the judge, for reasons which are not known to me, prepared his determination on 28 June and the determination was promulgated on 7 July 2016. He either overlooked or disregarded the directions of 2 June. Either way, as a result, his determination cannot stand as it was prepared without sight of the appellant's large bundle of documents. There has been procedural unfairness which amounts to an error of law and the determination is set aside in its entirety.

4. I heard discussion on whether the appeal should be disposed of by the Upper Tribunal or the First-tier Tribunal. As I have set aside the determination in its entirety, it is right that the matter should be re-determined by a First-tier Tribunal Judge. Ms Sharma confirmed that the appellant's instructions were for a paper determination. The appellant has submitted two bundles of documentary evidence which will need to be considered when the decision is re-made. Both parties will have an opportunity to submit any further submissions or evidence before the matter is determined. Directions shall be issued by the First-tier Tribunal.

5. Decision

6. The determination contains errors of law and the decision is set aside.

7. The matter is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision to be made, on all issues, on the papers.

Signed




Upper Tribunal Judge

Date: 2 December 2016