IA/04681/2015

  • 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/04681/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester, Piccadilly
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11th August 2016
On 15th August 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

MISS AYESHA RIZWAN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr M Moksud (agent for International Immigration Advisory Services)
For the Respondent: Mr A McVeety (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an application to the Upper Tribunal by the Appellant, with permission, against a judgment of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Lloyd) promulgated on 8th December 2015 in which she dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse her leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant.
2. The Appellant's application was refused for a single reason. She had leave as a student due to expire on 20th July 2014. She applied, in time, for further leave as a student. The Secretary of State refused the application because according to the CAS the start date of the course was 8th August 2014, more that 28 days after the expiry of her leave and thus it did not meet the requirements of paragraph 245ZX(1) of the Immigration Rules.
3. Judge Lloyd had the documents submitted with the application. The Appellant had submitted an online application and an online CAS. She also posted a Course Statement. There is a note at the end of the statement which says that the course week, 11th to 15th August 2014, was a welcome week which consisted of induction and enrolment. The Judge took the evidence of the CAS alone and found the course started on 18th August.
4. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal on the basis that the Judge misunderstood the evidence.
5. Mr McVeety conceded that the evidence before the Secretary of State and the First-tier Tribunal Judge indicated that there was essentially a "Fresher's Week" from 11th August. There were no lectures but the Appellant was required to attend. He accepted that the "course" started on 11th August and thus did meet the requirements of the Rules.
6. The Judge made a material error of law in misunderstanding the evidence about the true start date of the course. For that reason I set her decision aside. I redecide the case and allow the appeal.
7. The Appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed.
Notice of Decision

The appeal is allowed.

No anonymity direction having been requested none is made.



Signed Date 12th August 2016


Upper Tribunal Judge Martin