Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/14459/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 7 September 2016
On 16 September 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HILL QC

Between

NOMAN AHMED KHAN
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Khan, Counsel, instructed by A-R Law Chambers
For the Respondent: Mr D Clarke, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal from the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Rastogi promulgated on 8 January 2016. The appellant, who is represented today by Mr Khan, neither appeared nor was represented before the First-tier Tribunal. He is a citizen of Pakistan born on 11 January 1984 and had applied for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student on 20 July 2014. There is an error in paragraph 4 of the decision in that it refers to the notice from the immigration department as being dated 4 September 2013 whereas it was in fact 31 March 2015. It is accepted by both representatives that this is the correct date and that nothing turns on the typographical error in the determination.
2. What appears to be the case is that an earlier student visa was granted to appellant on the basis that he was to study at the Birmingham Education Academy. The current application was refused was on the basis that the appellant claimed he would be studying at ISA Education (for which he did not have a CAS). Further, in breach of the terms of his previous visa he had not in fact been studying at the Birmingham Education Academy, but at ISA Education.
3. The judge considered the matter fully and came to the conclusion that the appeal must fail in consequence of both the absence of a CAS and also the breach of the previous visa.
4. The substantive ground upon which permission to appeal was granted turned on an allegation that the Secretary of State ought to have followed her standing policy and sent what is called a "60 day letter" to the appellant informing him that the licence for the institution where he was studying had been revoked and affording him the opportunity of securing another CAS.
5. It is clear having considered the evidence, and is very fairly conceded by Mr Khan on his client's behalf, that notwithstanding the allegation made in the appellant's witness statement there was no evidence to suggest that the licence for the Birmingham Education Academy was revoked and it follows that there was therefore no requirement upon the Secretary of State to issue a 60 day letter.
6. In order for any appeal to succeed in the Upper Tribunal, what must be demonstrated is a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. Having listened with care to the submissions made by Mr Khan, I am not persuaded that there is an error of law in the way the First-tier Judge dealt with this matter and in the circumstances this appeal must be dismissed.

Notice of Decision
Appeal must be dismissed.
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Mark Hill Date 16 September 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hill QC