HU/03698/2016

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 3 Feb 2017
• Promulgation date: 16 Feb 2017
• Publication date: 22 Nov 2021
• Last updated on: 22 Nov 2021

The decision

IAC-AH-CO-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/03698/2016


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at City Centre Tower, Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 3rd February 2017
On 16th February 2017




Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

Taofeek Adeyinka
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Unrepresented
For the Respondent: Mrs H Aboni, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria born on 30th November 1972. The Appellant illegally entered the United Kingdom probably sometime in 2008 and thereafter made a series of unsuccessful applications for leave to remain. Eventually and on 6th January 2015 he applied for leave to remain on the basis that his removal would be contrary to the provisions of Article 3 ECHR owing to his medical condition. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent's letter of 28th January 2016. The Appellant appealed, and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lloyd (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 3rd May 2016. He decided to dismiss the appeal for the reasons given in his Decision dated 20th June 2016. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 21st October 2016 such permission was granted.
Error of Law
2. I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.
3. In his grounds of application the Appellant relied upon one issue which was that he had been the victim of a procedural irregularity in that he had not been served with and had not seen the Respondent's Bundle until the morning of the hearing on 3rd May 2016. The Judge had arranged for the Appellant to be supplied with photocopies of the Bundle, but he had not been able to consider it fully prior to the hearing after which the Appellant had submitted his written comments. The Bundle included several inaccuracies, and omitted certain relevant evidence. The Appellant argued that he had been denied the opportunity of dealing with these issues at the hearing. They were material to his Article 3 claim.
4. In response to the submissions of the Appellant, Mrs Aboni referred to her Rule 24 response and argued that there was no such material error of law. Subsequent to the appeal the Judge considered the submissions and evidence submitted by the Appellant prior to deciding the appeal. In any event, the Bundle contained little more than documents submitted by the Appellant prior to the hearing, and therefore known to him, and objective evidence. There had been no disadvantage to the Appellant in the Judge proceeding to hear the appeal. The burden was upon the Appellant to show that appropriate medical treatment was not available to him in Nigeria and the Appellant had ample opportunity of dealing with the issues in respect of which his application had been refused.
5. I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which therefore I do not set aside. The issue of the Bundle is dealt with by the Judge at paragraph 3 of the Decision. It is apparent from what he wrote there that there was no procedural irregularity which put the Appellant to any disadvantage. Prior to the hearing commencing the Appellant was provided with copies of the Respondent's Bundle and the opportunity to read them. The Appellant did not make any sort of application for an adjournment, and the hearing proceeded in the normal way without the Appellant raising any issue relating to the Bundle. The Appellant had the opportunity of commenting on the contents of the bundle subsequent to the hearing. The Judge took into account those comments before reaching his decision in the appeal. The Appellant therefore had ample opportunity to fully present his case and was not prejudiced in any way in receiving the Bundle late. For these reasons I find no material error of law in the decision of the Judge which I do not set aside.
Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on the point of law.
I do not set aside that decision.
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order for anonymity. I was not asked to do so, and indeed find no reason to do so.



Signed Dated

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton