Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: ia/09580/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19th August 2016
On 24th August 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ZUCKER

Between

bikramjit singh
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Ms A Fijiwala, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of India whose date of birth is recorded as 4th November 1988. On or about 29th December 2014 he made application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the dependant of his wife Satinder Kaur, date of birth 7th August 1982. The application made by the Appellant, as indeed that of his wife was made outside of the Rules. On 20th February 2015 a decision was made to refuse the application and the Appellant appealed. His appeal was decided on the papers by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Spear. In a decision dated 16th January 2016 she dismissed the appeal on all grounds including, in particular, Article 8 ECHR.
2. Not content with that decision by Notice dated 26th January 2016 the Appellant made application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The first ground contended that as the Appellant's wife had herself appealed, the two appeals should have been heard together all the more so because the Appellant's solicitors had, by letter dated 6th March 2015, specifically made that request. The failure of the Tribunal to hear both cases together was said to offend the rules of fairness. That was the only ground. On 1st July 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Fisher granted permission. Thus the matter comes before me.
3. That family members in cases which are clearly based upon the same sets of facts ought to have heard their appeals heard together is clearly proper and in certain circumstances it might amount to an error of law where in particular one of the parties has been deprived of the opportunity of being heard. However, records show that the Appellant's wife's appeal was heard on 28th August 2015. I have no reason to doubt that which is entirely consistent with further correspondence from the Appellant's solicitors who asked for the appeal in relation to this particular Appellant to be dealt with on the papers. The letter making that request is dated 2nd September 2015 following, it is clear, the appeal of the Appellant's wife.
4. The Appellant's wife's appeal was dismissed, that is also clear from all of the papers. There was no reason why, it would seem, and certainly no sufficient reason placed before me, why the Appellant could not be heard in his wife's appeal. In those circumstances there was no unfairness. Still further, and importantly, given that his wife's appeal has been dismissed and given that he made his appeal on the basis of being a dependant on his wife, once his wife's appeal was dismissed there really was nothing left of his appeal. I note in relation to his wife from the history report that her appeal was not only dismissed but that an application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was refused. That was on or about 17th February 2016 and since then there has been no procedural steps taken. It follows that so far as her appeal is concerned she is now "appeal rights exhausted".
5. I come to the view that this is an appeal entirely without merit. The substance of the appeal is that the two Appellants should have had the opportunity to be heard together; they were not denied that opportunity. The Appellant in this appeal, as I have already observed, was perfectly free to attend at his wife's appeal and give evidence. The judge at that appeal would have considered the merits. Nothing material turns on the ground if indeed there is any error of law at all. In those circumstances the appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 24 August 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Zucker