IA/16573/2015

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision


IAC-AH-LEM-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/16573/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 2 December 2016
On 4 January 2017



Before

DR H H STOREY
JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

Between

MR MUBSHAR RAMZAN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Mr L Tarlow, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of India. He has permission to challenge a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge O R Williams sent on 30 June 2016 dismissing his appeal against the decision of the respondent made on 2 April 2015 refusing him leave to remain as a Tier 4 student.

2. The appellant did not attend and provided no explanation in writing for his absence. He did, however, send to the Tribunal on 30 November 2016, the day before the hearing, a letter with a bundle of documents including a Royal Mail receipt. He did not include in this letter that he wished to attend. In such circumstances I decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of one of the parties.

3. The appellant's only ground of appeal is that the FtT erred in deciding the case on the basis that in 2015 the appellant had not submitted a CAS within the period of 60 days when he was informed by the respondent that he had that number of days to secure another CAS.

4. The appellant's grounds must fail. The only evidence he has adduced in support of his claim that he submitted the new CAS, from Dockland Academy London (the CAS itself being dated 7 March 2015) shows that it was only submitted on 18 July 2016. That is nearly a year outside the 60-day period. Hence it is plain that the new CAS was not produced to the respondent within the 60 day period and neither the respondent nor the FtT Judge can be blamed for failing to have regard to it. The Immigration Rules prescribe that a current CAS must accompany an application. It did not. The FtT Judge in any event could only concern himself with the evidence in front of him and on that evidence no current CAS had been submitted within the 60 days.

5. For the above reasons the appellant's appeal is dismissed.

Notice of Decision

The appeal is dismissed.

No anonymity direction is made.


Signed Date

Dr H H Storey
Judge of the Upper Tribunal