IA/18088/2014

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

The decision


IAC-FH-nl-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: ia/18088/2014


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 13 December 2016
On 04 January 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GLEESON

Between

Karishma Rameshchandra Parekh
(no anonymity order made)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: No appearance or representation
For the Respondent: Mr C Avery, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, dismissing her appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse her leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur). The appellant appealed with two other individuals, whose appeals should have been linked to hers, but were not: Rana Ahmed (IA/18054/2014) and Misbah Talib (IA/18067/2014).
2. The grant of permission in this appeal was on the basis that there had been an administrative error by the Tribunal, causing all three appellants not to attend the hearing and the present appellant's case not to be linked with that of the other two appellants.
3. On 8 August 2016, the Upper Tribunal received a letter indicating that Rana Ahmed and Misbah Talib wished to withdraw their appeals and make a fresh visa application. The consent of the Upper Tribunal is required for the withdrawal of an appeal before the Upper Tribunal. On 9 August 2014 the Upper Tribunal accepted the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 17.
4. That left only the present appellant's appeal outstanding. This appeal was to have been heard before the Upper Tribunal on 13 October 2016 but was adjourned, not reached, to the first available date with standard directions and a specific direction that any allegation of misconduct against the previous solicitors should be proved if it were to be relied upon.
5. At the hearing this morning there was no appearance by or representation on behalf of the appellant, nor any indication as to why that is the case. No evidence has been filed to support the allegation of misconduct against the previous solicitors.
6. I conclude therefore that this appellant has no continuing interest in the appeal and that it should be dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) appeal therefore stands.
Conclusions
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law. I do not set aside the decision.


Signed: Judith A J C Gleeson Date: 3 January 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Gleeson