Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-AR-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/17275/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 2nd November 2016
On 11th November 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD

Between

MR MUHAMMAD ARIFUR RAHMAN
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: No appearance or representation
For the Respondent: Ms J Isherwood, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. On 17th April 2015 a decision was made by the Secretary of State that he did not qualify for leave to remain under Part 6 of the Immigration Rules and a decision was made to remove him from the United Kingdom.
2. The Appellant had submitted a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) from Sanjari International College and the Home Office advised him that the college were no longer listed as a Tier 4 Sponsor. On 16th December 2014 he was allowed 60 days to obtain a new sponsoring CAS but he did not do that. He was therefore given 0 points in connection with the CAS or for maintenance purposes and his application was rejected.
3. His subsequent appeal to First-tier Judge J Macdonald (not the writer) was dismissed. The Appellant had moved to adjourn the hearing because he had a medical appointment and, for reasons given, the judge refused to adjourn the case and gave reasons for dismissing the appeal. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the Appellant had been denied the opportunity of attending at the hearing given his medical history.
4. The Home Office lodged a Rule 24 notice indicating that the appeal was decided on the papers. The issues we clear. The Appellant had been granted 60 days leave to find a college but had failed to do so. There was no unfairness to the Appellant and no material error in law.
5. Prior to the case coming before me on the above date there was a further application for an adjournment from the Appellant because he was unwell. It was said that he had ongoing medical problems. He refers to a chronic history of cardiac difficulties. The adjournment request was refused because he had not indicated he would be able to attend within any specific timeframe. No medical evidence was available.
6. Before me Ms Isherwood for the Home Office stated that the fundamental issue was that the Appellant could not succeed in this case. He had already been given 60 days to find a new sponsor. The Secretary of State had followed her own policy. There was no error in law and the decision should stand.
Conclusion
7. Judge Macdonald gave various reasons for refusing to adjourn the case. He noted that the Appellant had longstanding heart difficulties and given the long advance notice of the hearing the Appellant could have made arrangements to see his general practitioner on another day. He further took into account in deciding whether to grant an adjournment the Appellant's engagement with the proceedings. He noted the Appellant had not filed any documents in support of his claim nor had he filed a witness statement. He had known since 10th May 2015 that his appeal was to be heard on 29th March 2016. The judge referred to the Tribunal Rules and the interests of justice and went on to hear and dismiss the appeal.
8. In my view the judge cannot be faulted for proceeding with the appeal. He gave clear reasons why he was not granting an adjournment. By inference it can be concluded that he did not consider it would be unfair to proceed and he therefore had regard to the principles and importance of fairness as set down in Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 00418 (IAC).
9. In addition the fundamental point made by Ms Isherwood that this appeal never had any prospect of succeeding is a good one. This case is not about the extent of the Appellant's cardiac problems as they are not material to the outcome of the appeal. Put simply, the Appellant does not come within the Immigration Rules. As explained by the First-tier Tribunal Judge the Appellant raised no further issue in the appeal. In these circumstances the judge could have done nothing else except dismiss the appeal. There is no error in law and the decision must stand. There is no need for an anonymity direction.
Decision
10. The making of the decision of the First tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error in law.
11. I do not set aside the decision.
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge J G Macdonald

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD
I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge J G Macdonald