Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tier Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/11491/2013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Determination Promulgated
On 19 November 2013
On 23 December 2013

Before

JUDGE DRABU CBE

Between

MR AMARPREET SINGH WARAICH
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

Representation:
For the appellant: No appearance
For the respondent: Mr T Wilding, Senior Presenting Officer.

1. The appellant is a national of India. His date of birth is 10 January 1986. On 2 April 2013 he was refused variation of leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant under the Points Based System. He was also refused Biometric Residence Permit. He was refused any points for Maintenance, as he was unable to show that he did not have the required amount of money for 28 days from 13 January 2013 to 9 February 2013. He appealed and his appeal was heard by Judge Monro at the First tier Tribunal. The appellant was represented, as was the respondent. The Judge dismissed the appeal. The appellant, in is evidence accepted that he did not have the level of funds required for the relevant period. The Judge considered his claim under Article 8 of ECHR but found that the decision to remove him was proportionate. The determination of Judge Monro was promulgated on 19 September 2013.
2. The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal contending that the First tier Judge had erred in law by not following Upper Tribunal decision in Kaur (2013) UKUT 344 IAC. Permission was granted by Judge Hemingway, a Judge of the First tier Tribunal.
3. For the appellant no papers were filed before the Upper Tribunal. Neither was there any appearance on his behalf or by him. I assured myself that the appellant had been properly served the notice of hearing. The case file showed that a copy of the notice of hearing had been sent to him at his last known address on 17 October 2013 by first class post. The same notice had been copied to his then legal representative Legend Solicitors. I arranged the Court Clerk to call Legend Solicitor before proceeding with the hearing and the response was that they are no longer acting for the appellant. The appellant, I note has not sought adjournment of the hearing for any reason. In the circumstances and bearing in mind the interests of justice, I proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the appellant.
4. I looked vey carefully at the transcript of the judgment in Kaur. Mr Wilding submitted that the principles laid down in Kaur had no bearing on the facts of the appeal before me. He asked me to look carefully at Paragraph 4 of the decision of the First tier Judge which showed that the appellant had been afforded the opportunity which was absent in Patel. According to Mr Wilding the approach of Judge Munro was correct in law and on facts and he asked that the decision not be disturbed.
5. I have looked most carefully at the determination and in the context of the issue raised by the appellant, which is far from clear to me, in the absence of the appellant’s failure to appear or be represented. I do not find any error in law in the determination of Judge Munro. It is a full and fair analysis of facts presented before her and her findings accord with the facts as well as the relevant law.
6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Judge Drabu CBE
Date: 16 December 2013

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD
As I have dismissed the appeal no fee award can be made.

Judge Drabu CBE
Date: 16 December 2013