IA/15978/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 23 Jun 2016
• Promulgation date: 29 Sep 2016
• Publication date: 15 Jun 2020
• Last updated on: 15 Jun 2020

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/15978/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 23rd June, 2016
On 29 September 2016



Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley


Between

USMAN RASHID DAR
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Maqsood, Counsel, instructed by Pride Solicitors
For the Respondent: Miss Brocklesby-Weller, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a Pakistani citizen, born on 20th October, 1987, who was originally granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student on 20th March 2011. On 28th April, 2014 he applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student identifying Alpha College of Grosvenor House, Edgware High Street, Middlesex as his sponsor, with the course he proposed to attend commencing on 13th May, 2014 and ending on 8th October, 2015.
2. The respondent refused that application by letter dated 19th April, 2015 and gave the appellant notice that it was proposed to remove him from the United Kingdom under Section 47 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 2006.
3. The appellant's appeal appears to have been heard at Newport on 16th December, 2015 when the appellant was neither present nor represented. The judge arranged for an email to be sent to the appellant telling the appellant that he had failed to provide evidence to show that he was unable to attend the hearing of the appeal and attend court. He was warned that the judge would proceed to hear the appeal in his absence.
4. No evidence was placed before the Tribunal either in the form of oral evidence and documentary evidence, save for a small bundle which was provided by the Presenting Officer at the hearing. The judge accepted that bundle and relied on it. In doing so I believe that the judge erred in law. He should not have allowed himself to have received evidence from one party in the absence of another, unless he was satisfied that the absent party had already received the bundle and had the opportunity of commenting on it.
5. I indicated to the representatives that in my view the judge had erred and invited them to comment. Ms Brocklesby-Weller quite properly accepted that the judge had erred by agreeing to receive further evidence from the Presenting Officer in the absence of the appellant and giving the appellant the opportunity of making submissions in respect of that evidence.

Notice of Decision
6. As a result the appellant has not had a fair hearing and in accordance with the Senior President's Practice Statement I have concluded that the matter must be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh before a judge other than Judge R E Barraclough.
No anonymity direction is made.


Richard Chalkley
Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley