Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/06354/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 5th April 2017
On 27th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS

Between

MRS GOLNAZ AYAZI
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No attendance
For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Iran born on 13th April 1981. She had applied for entry clearance as a partner under Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules and her application was considered under paragraph EC-P.1.1 of Appendix FM by the Entry Clearance Officer, Istanbul. Her application was refused by Notice of Refusal dated 19th June 2015.
2. The Appellant lodged Grounds of Appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and the appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Thornton sitting at Bradford on 4th September 2016. In a decision and reasons promulgated on 12th September 2016 the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed. Handwritten Grounds of Appeal were lodged to the Upper Tribunal on 4th September 2016. On 22nd November 2016 First-tier Tribunal Judge Nightingale granted permission to appeal. Judge Nightingale noted that the grounds comprised a letter from the Appellant’s solicitor and stated that no notice of hearing was received by them or by the Appellant and hence there was no attendance and that they had not received the Respondent’s bundle. The decision was appealed because the Entry Clearance Officer had, it was contended, miscalculated the Sponsor’s income and erred in that the Appellant had £75,000 for twelve months immediately prior to the application in her account and this had not been considered.
3. Judge Nightingale noted that the file indicated that the Appellant’s representatives were sent the notice of hearing on 2nd August 2016, however there also appeared to be correspondence chasing a hearing date earlier in the year. She considered it was not clear why the notice of hearing should not have arrived at the Appellant’s solicitors. Nonetheless, however, he considered that there was no full Respondent’s bundle on the file and the documents appended to the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal were printed as blank and unreadable. He noted that the judge did not appear to have had placed before him the documents which were submitted with the application and in these circumstances permission to appeal was granted.
4. On 29th December 2016 the Secretary of State responded to the Grounds of Appeal under Rule 24. The Rule 24 response noted that the First-tier Tribunal Judge had found that the notice of hearing was served on the Appellant and that the Appellant’s appeal was heard in the absence of a Home Office Presenting Officer and the First-tier Tribunal Judge took into account the overriding objective. The Rule 24 reply went on to contend that in the circumstances there could be no suggestion of procedural unfairness.
5. It is on that basis that the appeal comes before me to determine whether or not there is a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge. There is no attendance by the Appellant or by her representative or Sponsor. The Secretary of State appears by her Home Office Presenting Officer Mr Harrison.
6. I took time to consider the procedural service of documents in this matter, particularly bearing in mind the above mentioned history. On 4th January 2017 the Appellant’s then instructed solicitors, AUUA Law, notified the Tribunal that they were no longer instructed. That was confirmed by letter from the Tribunal Service to AUUA Law dated 27th January. That letter in response noted that the Appellant’s address details were currently care of AUUA Law Solicitors and that therefore they would require her residential address which could then be updated on the database. It appears from correspondence that there was no response to that letter.
7. It is against that background that notice of hearing was sent out. I acknowledge that that notice, which was sent out on 17th February 2017, was sent to the Appellant’s Sponsor, Mr Nader Mafi, at his last known address. I further note that there has been no documents returned to the Tribunal. In such circumstances I am satisfied that good service has been effected on the Sponsor and that the parties are aware of the appeal and the appeal proceeds on that basis.
8. Mr Harrison points out that there has been no evidence produced to show that the Appellant earns the income contended as a dentist, and that there has been no documentary evidence produced whatsoever to show that the findings and conclusions reached by the First-tier Tribunal Judge based on the evidence that was before him was wrong.
9. I have given due consideration to the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The basis of appeal is lodged very much on the basis that there has been a procedural unfairness due to a lack of notification of the hearing and appropriate documentation. I have given full consideration to the file. There is nothing within the court file that shows that the Appellant’s Sponsor can meet the threshold required financially. If there is to be criticism in this matter, it must be thrown entirely on the Sponsor. He has now been notified on two occasions of hearings and has failed to appear. He has further failed to produce appropriate documentation. In all the circumstances, there remains nothing before me to show that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal was wrong and there is no material error disclosed in the manner in which the First-tier Tribunal Judge has addressed this matter. Consequently, the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is maintained.
Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal contains no material error of law and the appeal of the Appellant is dismissed and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge is maintained.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 20th April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge D N Harris

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

No application is made for a fee award and none is made.

Signed Date 20th April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge D N Harris