Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/14414/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at: Manchester
Decision Promulgated
On: 21st September 2016
On: 30th September 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
And

Naseeb Gul
(no anonymity direction made)
Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr Harrison, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: in person

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Respondent is a national of Pakistan date of birth 2nd August 1988. On the 26th January 2016 First-tier Tribunal Judge Brunnen allowed his appeal against a decision to refuse to grant further leave as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant. The Secretary of State for the Home Department now has permission to appeal against that decision.

2. The crux of the appeal before the Tribunal who was whether the Mr Gul had fallen victim to unfairness after his Tier 4 Sponsor, Bradford Regional College, had had its licence revoked, resulting in him being denied further leave.

3. Judge Brunnen was informed by Mr Gul that he had made his application, accompanied by his valid CAS, in May 2014. He started his studies in June 2014. By the end of the summer the college had been closed down and in March 2015 he received notification that further leave was being refused. Mr Gul asked for nothing more than a '60 day letter', that is a letter conferring a short period of leave to enable him to get a new CAS and make a new application. Judge Brunnen considered that to be a fair and lawful resolution of the situation and allowed the appeal on that limited basis.

4. The Respondent now appeals on the grounds that the Home Office records show that Mr Gul had in fact been issued with 'a 60 day letter' back in March 2015 when the application had been refused. This had been in accordance with policy and there was no unfairness. The appeal had been on a 'float' list and so the Home Office Presenting Officer had been disadvantaged by not having the file. There had therefore been a procedural irregularity in the way that the decision had been reached.

My Findings

5. This appeal is hopelessly without merit for the following reasons:

i) The suggestion that the Home Office is materially disadvantaged by the procedure of cases being listed as 'floats' is not sustainable. The Home Office are informed in advance what cases are going to be on the floats lists, just as they are appeals listed in the ordinary way.

ii) The Presenting Officer on the day, Mr Richardson, made no application for an adjournment. If he had considered that he was in some way unable to prosecute the case effectively he should have indicated that to Judge Brunnen.

iii) There is in fact no evidence to support the assertion that Mr Richardson did not have the file. Before me Mr Harrison had to concede that the file does contain Mr Richardson's notes of the hearing. Whilst it is possible that these may have been added to the file at a later date, the determination itself records [at paragraph 4] that Mr Richardson submitted further documents, in addition to the already served appeal bundle. It is difficult to see where he got those documents from if he did not have the file.

iv) The whole point of Mr Gul's case is that he did not receive a '60 day letter' when he got the refusal in March 2015. On the evidence before the Tribunal, Judge Brunnen accepted that to be the case. That was the evidence before him and he cannot be criticised for not having regard to evidence or submissions that he was not made aware of.

6. The Secretary of State has not demonstrated there to be any error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed.

Decisions

7. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal contains no error of law and it is upheld.

8. There is no order for anonymity.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
21st September 2016