IA/00057/2015

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/00057/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at : UT(IAC) Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On : 28 February 2017
On : 2 March 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE


Between

HARPREET KAUR

Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms L Norman, instructed by Bassi Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing her appeal against the respondent’s decision to refuse to vary her leave to remain.

2. The appellant is a citizen of India, born on 8 October 1985. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 6 April 2007 with a spouse visa and was subsequently granted discretionary leave to remain on the basis of her marriage. On 28 August 2014 she made an application for indefinite leave to remain as the victim of domestic violence, along with an application for leave to remain on human rights grounds. Both applications were refused on 10 September 2014.

3. The appellant’s appeal against that decision was initially allowed by the First-tier Tribunal on Article 8 grounds on 13 August 2015. However the judge’s decision was subsequently set aside by the Upper Tribunal on 18 May 2016 and remitted to the First- tier Tribunal.

4. The appellant’s appeal was heard afresh in the First-tier Tribunal on 30 June 2016 by First-tier Tribunal Judge Juss. At the hearing before the judge an adjournment application was made by the appellant’s Counsel, Ms Bhachu, on the grounds that she knew the parents of the appellant’s ex-husband and therefore she considered that the appellant may not feel comfortable with the situation. The judge allowed Ms Bhachu to make arrangements for another counsel to appear and in fact her instructing solicitor, Ms Sidhu then appeared. Ms Sidhu in turn made an adjournment application in light of the circumstances that had arisen and on the basis that the appellant was too distressed to proceed. The judge refused the adjournment application and proceeded to hear the appeal, rejecting the appellant’s claim in regard to having been a victim of domestic violence. He dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

5. The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds, inter alia, of procedural unfairness.

6. Mr Mills, at the hearing before me, conceded that there had been procedural unfairness in the way the judge had proceeded with the appeal. I agreed that that was the case. All parties were in agreement that the correct course would be for the case to be remitted once again to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.

DECISION

7. The appellant’s appeal is allowed.

8. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law. The decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal, pursuant to section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Practice Statement 7.2, to be dealt with afresh, before any judge aside from Judge Phull, Judge French and Judge Juss.



Signed
Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede