IA/09877/2015 & IA/11477/2015

  • 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 Numbers: IA/09877/2015
IA/11477/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 15th March 2017
On 27th April 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN


Between

Michael Iregbena Ekundayo (First Appellant)
Titilayo Irene Ekundayo (Second Appellant)
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellants
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr A Vanas of Visa Inn Immigration Specialist
For the Respondent: Mr K Norton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal by the First Appellant who is asserting a procedural error by the Tribunal. The circumstances are that for health reasons the First Appellant had asked that the case be dealt with on the papers. When he made that application the Tribunal then issued a notice on 20th September 2016 advising the First Appellant that he should submit all his evidence and documents to the Tribunal and the Respondent by 27th September 2016. I have seen a receipt from Taylor House acknowledging receipt of a bundle of documents at 15:30 on 27th September 2016; therefore in time.
2. Unfortunately, the administration at Taylor House gave the case as a paper case to a judge for determination on 26th September 2016. The judge therefore decided it without sight of the Appellants’ evidence and before the submission date. That is a clear procedural error and unfairness which means that the judgment has to be set aside and the matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a decision.
3. It is regrettable that this has appeared in the Upper Tribunal because what ought to have happened was that when the permission to appeal application came in and was placed before a judge, the judge recognising there was a procedural error, which he clearly did, should have referred it to his Resident Judge for a Rule 32 decision and thus avoided the matter coming to the Upper Tribunal at all. Regrettably that did not happen, however now matters have been rectified and it is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
4. The First Appellant now requests an oral hearing and indeed he paid for an oral hearing to be listed in front of a judge.
5. No anonymity direction is made.



Signed Date 22 March 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin