IA/10523/2015

  • 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/10523/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10 January 2017
On 24 January 2017



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE G A BLACK


Between

usman khalid
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: No appearance by the appellant
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal by the appellant in the First-tier Tribunal, Mr Usman Khalid, against a decision and reasons promulgated on 1 August 2016 before First-tier Tribunal (Judge Rodger) ("FTT") in which the appeal determined on the papers was dismissed on immigration and human rights grounds.
2. The appellant was granted permission to appeal by Designated First-tier Tribunal Judge Macdonald on 2 December 2016 on the grounds that the FTT did not have the appellant's bundle before it when it considered this matter. Permission was granted on the basis that the appellant therefore had suffered procedural unfairness. The permitting judge also stated, or rather observed, that he remained unconvinced that the appeal would have succeeded even relying on the evidence adduced in the appellant's bundle.
3. The facts are that the appellant entered the UK as a student with a visa valid until 29 October 2014 and thereafter applied for discretionary leave to remain on 28 October 2014 to continue to pursue his studies and to sit his outstanding exams. This application was refused and removal directions were made on 16 March 2015. The FTT considered the appeal with reference to paragraph 276ADE and outside of the Rules. The FTT fully considered all aspects of the appeal and referred to relevant case law, in particular Patel and Others v SSHD [2013] UKSC 72.
4. I have heard nothing further from the appellant who has not attended the hearing this morning. Mr Whitwell on behalf of the respondent made submissions as regards error of law. I have decided that there was an error of law to the extent that the FTT did not have all the evidence before it that the appellant wished to rely on. The FTT did not have the appellant's bundle before it in reaching its decision.
5. There is an error of law.
6. Mr Whitwell made further succinct submissions and I agree with those submissions following the decision of Patel. I find that the appellant would either now have had the opportunity to re-sit his exams which would have been in June 2015 or, alternatively, I take the view that following Patel the opportunity to complete one's studies is not a protected right under Article 8. I find no evidence of any compelling circumstances. Therefore, having taken into account evidence in the bundle that the appellant relied on, I am satisfied that it makes no difference to the final decision and that the error of law was not therefore material. The appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed and the decision made shall stand.
No anonymity direction is made.



Signed Date 22.1.2017

GA Black
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge G A Black


TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD
I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award.



Signed Date 22.1.2017

GA Black
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge G A Black