IA/01227/2015

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

The decision


IAC-AH-KRL-fh-nl-V2

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/01227/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 16 January 2017
On 27 February 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN


Between

Emmanuela Yusuf
(anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr D. Adams instructed by Andy D Legal & Immigration
For the Respondent: Mr E. Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the appeal of Ms Yusuf against the decision of the First-tier Judge who dismissed her appeal against the Secretary of State's decision of 10 December 2014.
2. The matter can be dealt with fairly swiftly today. There was no appearance by Ms Yusuf or her representatives at the hearing before the judge. The solicitors were telephoned, there was no response and the telephone answering machine was on. The judge went ahead with the hearing and dismissed the appeal.
3. In the grounds of appeal it is said that neither she nor the solicitors ever received the notice of hearing. At that stage her address was care of those solicitors so it is not as though there were as it were two opportunities for a notice of hearing to go to different addresses, they would both have gone to the same address and Mr Adams makes the point which I think is also made in the grounds that the appellant had attended previously a For Mention hearing and a CMR.
4. So there was no indication of a lack of enthusiasm for pursuing the claim and the submission today is that in the circumstances there is a lack of fairness in the appeal having proceeded without her involvement. Mr Tufan on behalf of the Secretary of State does not disagree that the appropriate course of action is for the matter to be sent back for a full hearing in the First-tier and I agree with the effectively joint submissions that have been made in this case. There is procedural unfairness in that we do not know why and we probably never will know why the notice of hearing was not received, but it is clear now that that problem is resolved to the extent that we now have the appellant's home address, she has different representatives, notice of hearing has gone to both those addresses for today and both of them have turned up. So that difficulty goes away but in the circumstances I think it is right that the appeal should be allowed to the extent that it is remitted for a fresh hearing in the First-tier Tribunal and so that is the outcome of the case.
5. No anonymity direction is made.


Signed Date

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen