HU/10086/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 16 Feb 2017
• Promulgation date: 21 Feb 2017
• Publication date: 14 Dec 2021
• Last updated on: 14 Dec 2021

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/10086/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 16th February 2017
On 21st February 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN


Between

Miss Dianah Giibwa
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr J Tamale, Sponsor
For the Respondent: Mr S Kotas, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal by the Appellant, Miss Dianah Giibwa, in relation to a Decision of the Judge First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 8th July 2016.
2. The original application was by the Appellant to join her husband, the Sponsor, in the United Kingdom. The application was refused by the Entry Clearance Officer and her appeal against that refusal dismissed by the judge on the basis of a lack of the appropriate evidence as to finance.
3. The ground on which permission to appeal was granted was on the basis that the judge decided the case on 6th April 2016, notwithstanding that it was much later when it was actually promulgated. It was decided without the benefit of a bundle of evidence that had been submitted by the Sponsor. The deadline for the submission of further evidence in this paper case was 13th April 2016 and the Sponsor submitted his further evidence, within that timescale, on 9th April 2016. It is stamped as heaving been received by the First-tier Tribunal on 10th April 2016.
4. That evidence however, did not find its way to the judge when the case was allocated to her on 6th April or before the decision was promulgated. Accordingly, she decided the appeal without taking into account the additional evidence which, the Sponsor argues today, would have made the difference between the appeal being dismissed and the appeal being allowed.
5. The appropriate way to deal with this therefore is for the Decision of Judge Simpson to be set aside in its entirety and the case to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be re-decided. It was a paper case because that is what the Appellant requested and the appropriate fee paid. If the Appellant and Sponsor wish to have an oral hearing before the First-tier Tribunal then they will need to contact the Tribunal and pay the additional fee. Otherwise it will be re-decided on the papers.
6. I would add that this case should never have come before the Upper Tribunal. The judge granting permission to appeal ought to have referred it to the Resident Judge to have it set aside under Rule 32, it being a procedural error by the Tribunal.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be re-decided.


No anonymity direction is made.



Signed Date 20th February 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin