Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/12208/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6 October 2016
On 19 October 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHAERF

Between

F B
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: No appearance by UNQ Immigration
For the Respondent: Mr S Staunton, Specialist Appeals Team

DECISION AND REASONS

The Appellant
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on 18 March 1985. On 3 August 2013 she was granted limited leave to enter as a Tier 4 (General) Student expiring on 31 January 2015. In time, on 26 January 2015 she applied for further leave to remain on the basis that her removal would place the State in breach of its obligations to respect her private life protected by Article 8 of the European Convention. She is single.
The Respondent's Decision
2. On 11 March 2015 the Respondent refused the application by way of reference to paragraph 276ADE(1) of the Immigration Rules and found that there were no particular circumstances justifying a consideration of the application under Article 8 outside the Immigration Rules.
The Original Grounds for Appeal
3. On 26 March 2015 the Appellant lodged notice of appeal under Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended (the 2002 Act). The grounds are formulaic and refer to the risk to the Appellant on return to Pakistan and living on her own as a single woman. There was no claim based on any family life in the United Kingdom.
The First-tier Tribunal's Decision
4. The appeal was set for hearing on 25 February 2016 at Taylor House. On 18 February the Appellant's previous representatives, London Law Associates informed the First-tier Tribunal that they had been instructed and enclosed a letter from the Appellant's GP as grounds for an adjournment. This letter stated: -
? this ? lady is ? suffering from moderate to severe endogenous depression and anxiety. She is awaiting an appointment for cognitive behavioural therapy. She is currently taking fluoxetine 20 milligrams daily. ? her symptoms are affecting her cognitive function, her sleep, her appetite and interfering with her activities of daily living. As a result ? she is not in a fit state of mind to provide evidence ? . ? once she starts cognitive behavioural therapy prognosis is excellent.
5. On 22 February the Tribunal by telephone and by a letter of that date advised the Appellant's representatives the adjournment application had been refused. The next day, the Tribunal gave notice transferring the hearing venue from Taylor House to Hendon Magistrates.
6. By a letter dated 24 February sent by fax UNQ Immigration informed the Tribunal that they were now instructed and noted that the adjournment request made by her previous representatives had been refused. It included the following: -
We are not in receipt of the refusal letter but would like for the courts to reconsider the matter at hand. A medical professional has provided the summary of our client's mental state and not an opinion being forward by the client herself or from a legal expert. We therefore humbly request for the Honourable Immigration Judge to consider our client's current condition and make a decision in accordance to the evidence provided herewith. We hope that the matter can now be adjourned and a new hearing date provided for the future.
The Tribunal did not respond to the renewed request for an adjournment made by UNQ Immigration. The renewed request was sent and received less than one clear day before the hearing and so the representatives were required to appear to make the adjournment application at the hearing on 25 February: see Practice Direction 9.
7. The matter came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Monson who was aware of the chronology of the adjournment applications which he set out at paragraphs 12 following of his decision and recorded there was no appearance by or for the Appellant and no further communication had been received from UNQ Immigration or London Law Associates. He was satisfied it was just to proceed in the absence of the Appellant or any representative for her. He considered the Appellant's original application for entry clearance as a Tier 4 (General) Student and went on to dismiss the appeal under both the Immigration Rules and under Article 8 both within and outside the Immigration Rules.
8. On 3 August 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Colyer refused the Appellant's application for permission to appeal which was based essentially on the ground that an adjournment should not have been refused.
9. The application was renewed on the same grounds to the Upper Tribunal and on 9 September 2016 Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb granted permission to extend time for the application for permission to appeal and granted permission on the following grounds. He granted permission on the ground that: -
The GP letter submitted with the application for an adjournment one week before the hearing unequivocally states that the Appellant's mental health was such that at present she could not properly give evidence at the hearing. It is arguable that, in the light of the GP letter, it was unfair not to adjourn the hearing at least for a finite period in order to allow the Appellant's prognosis to be clarified and to give her an opportunity to be in a fit state to give evidence.
The Upper Tribunal Hearing
10. On 15 September 2016 the Upper Tribunal sent notice that the appeal would be heard at Field House on 6 October 2016.
11. There was no appearance by or for the Appellant. On 19 September UNQ Immigration had sent an email to the Tribunal stating that: -
We have consulted with our client and she has informed us that she would like to change this from oral to paper.
The Tribunal did not make any response to that application and there was no appearance by or for the Appellant before me. I was informed there was no message left with Field House reception and at my request the Tribunal Clerk telephoned UNQ Immigration at about 10.30 a.m. and 12 p.m. She informed me that on both occasions the response was a telephone answering machine. She also advised me that she had telephoned the Appellant who had said that she was not aware of the hearing and confirmed that the address was the same address as that on the file and to which notice of the hearing had been issued on 15 September 2016. On 26 September the Upper Tribunal sent an e-mail to UNQ Immigration advising that all Upper Tribunal hearings are oral and that the appeal would remain in the list so that the Respondent could make oral submissions. The e-mail went on to advise that it was "at your discretion as to whether the Appellant or their representative attends the hearing".
12. In all the circumstances I was satisfied that notice of the date, time and place set for the hearing had been properly given in accordance with the Procedure Rules and that it was just to proceed in the absence of the Appellant or any representative for her.
13. There were no additional documents filed for the Appellant subsequent to the GP's letter in support of the original adjournment application to which reference has been made. I referred Mr Staunton to the chronology of events in relation to the adjournment application prior to the hearing before Judge Monson and the Respondent's response of 22 September pursuant to Procedure Rule 24. This refers to the late and scanty evidence in support of the application for the adjournment of the First-tier Tribunal hearing and the lack of any evidence to support the Appellant's claim about what her situation would be on return to Pakistan and submits that having regard to the overriding objective referred to in Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not contain any error of law.
Consideration and Conclusion
14. The Appellant has submitted no evidence to support her claim to be at risk on return to Pakistan or that she would face insuperable obstacles. She has supplied neither evidence of her private life in the United Kingdom nor evidence to show that her return to Pakistan would be such a grave interference with her private life that it would place the State in breach of its obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention.
15. Neither the Appellant nor her representatives have given any reason to the Tribunal for failing to file such evidence or failing to appear before either the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal.
16. I am unable to say whether the Appellant has genuinely not pursued her appeal with any vigour or has been ill-served by her representatives. I can decide the matter only on the evidence before me. On two separate occasions the Appellant or her representatives have under notice failed to comply with the requirements of the relevant Procedure Rules and Practice Directions. There is no evidence in the file to support the Appellant's various claims. In this context I have considered the decision of Judge Monson and am satisfied that it contains no error of law and contains no material error of law and so it shall stand. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Anonymity
17. There was no request for an anonymity order and having considered the appeal find none is warranted.

SUMMARY OF DECISION

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not contain an error of law and shall stand.

Signed/Official Crest Date 19. x. 2016

Designated Judge Shaerf
A Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal