HU/16170/2017

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 10 Dec 2018
• Promulgation date: 14 Jan 2019
• Publication date: 20 Feb 2019
• Last updated on: 20 Feb 2019

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/16170/2017

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Fox Court
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10 December 2018
On 14 January 2019



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN

Between

Faruq Afolabi Arogundade
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and

entry clearance officer
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr M Ume-Ezeoke, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms A Everett, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant, a citizen of Nigeria, is appealing against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Nicholls promulgated on 30 July 2018 to dismiss his appeal against the decision of the respondent to refuse his application for entry clearance to the UK on human rights grounds.
2. The issue before me is whether to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal because of a procedural irregularity.
3. Over a week prior to the hearing the appellant's solicitor wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment on the basis that notice of the hearing had not been sent to them and they had only discovered that the hearing was listed for 13 July 2018 because the information was within the bundle served by the respondent. The request for adjournment submitted that the appellant's sponsor was in Nigeria and was not in a position to proceed with the appeal on 13 July 2018.
4. It is clear that the judge was not aware of the application for an adjournment, as it is not referred to in the decision and the judge stated that no explanation had been given for the non-attendance of the sponsor and/or the appellant's representative.
5. Although the judge cannot be faulted for not adjourning when he was not aware of the application, there has still been an error of law: the adjournment application should have been considered and it was not. The decision is therefore set aside. Both parties submitted (and I agree) that the appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.
Notice of Decision
6. The decision contains a material error of law and is set aside.
7. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh before a different judge.
8. No anonymity direction is made.



Signed






Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan


Dated: 28 December 2018