IA/07814/2015

  • 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/07814/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4 April 2017
On 20th April 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY


Between

Mr Abdullah Al Maruf
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE )
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: No Representative
For the Respondent: Mr S. Kotas, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh who appeals against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Telford, who in a determination promulgated on 3 October 2016 dismissed his application for an extension of stay. The appellant had argued that on Article 8 grounds he should be entitled to remain in Britain to complete his course of studies and had cited various difficulties he had had in doing so because of problems with his college.

2. The appellant did not attend the hearing and the judge quite clearly took against him in that regard. However, there should have been a properly argued application for an adjournment of the hearing because of the appellant’s ill health. Moreover, the appellant states that he had not instructed his representatives to ask for the appeal to be dealt with on the papers.

3. These errors, it is argued by the appellant, show serious misconduct by the appellant’s representatives and, in the bundle of documents, which has been submitted there is clear evidence not only of the reasons why an adjournment was necessary but also, and perhaps more importantly, of complaints made by the appellant to the legal ombudsman regarding the conduct of the solicitors.

4. Mr Kotas has quite properly conceded that there were serious errors of conduct by the appellant’s representatives and that it would be appropriate that this appeal should be remitted. He quite properly referred to the determination in BT (Nepal). This is a case where there is before me clear evidence that the misconduct of the appellant’s former representatives has been followed up.

5. In these circumstances I set aside the decision of the First-tier Judge and remit this appeal to a hearing afresh in the First-tier.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted to the First-tier tribunal for a hearing afresh.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 18 April 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge McGeachy