IA/04497/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 1 Aug 2016
• Promulgation date: 2 Aug 2016
• Publication date: 30 Nov 2017
• Last updated on: 30 Nov 2017

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/04497/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at: Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On: 1st August 2016
On: 2nd August 2016




Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between

Ilaben Nileshkumar Patel
(no anonymity direction made)

Appellant
And


Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent


For the Appellant: -
For the Respondent: Ms Isherwood Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a national of India date of birth 26th October 1977. On the 4th November 2015 the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Telford) dismissed her appeal against a decision to refuse to vary her leave to remain and to remove her from the United Kingdom pursuant to s47 of the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

2. The matter in dispute between the parties was set out in the 'refusal letter' dated 21st January 2015. Therein the Respondent decided that the Appellant did not qualify for leave to remain as the dependent partner of a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant. The reason for that was because her husband was supposed to be studying at a Higher Education Institute, but he wasn't. He had been studying at the 'International School of Sikh Studies'. He did not qualify for leave as a Tier 4 Migrant, and therefore nor did she. The refusal letter makes express reference to paragraph 319(c)(i) of the Rules.

3. The Appellant brought an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. She did not attend the hearing and the Judge therefore proceeded to determine the matter on the basis of the written grounds. The appeal was dismissed for the same reasons set out in the refusal letter.

4. The Appellant sought permission to appeal and it was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Jordan who queried the terms of the refusal letter and the "disgraceful" drafting of the provision in question. In granting permission Judge Jordan gave directions that the Respondent should review her refusal letter.

5. When the matter came before me the Appellant did not attend. This was no doubt because of certain developments in her case. Following the grant of permission by Judge Jordan the SSHD withdrew the decision under appeal and issued a fresh refusal, against which the Appellant has now lodged another appeal. That appeal is now pending in the First-tier Tribunal under reference IA/02340/2016. I have received no formal request that the appeal has been withdrawn, nor do I consider it appropriate to treat it as abandoned. In the circumstances I consider that the only appropriate disposal is to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it is no longer pursued by the Appellant.

Decisions

6. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal has not been shown to contain an error of law and it is upheld.

7. There is no order for anonymity.




Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
29th July 2016