IA/29748/2015

  • 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/29748/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 30th January 2017
On 10th February 2017



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD


Between

mr GURJEeT SINGH
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Hiren Patel, Solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr P Singh, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of India who appealed against a decision to refuse his application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student. His appeal to First-tier Tribunal Judge Clarke was dismissed in a decision promulgated on 8th May 2016.
2. The grounds of application focus on the basis that the Appellant had never received a 60 day letter following the revocation of the licence of the Sponsoring institution either by mail or email from the Respondent. The judge was aware of the Appellant's position but had failed to follow established case law namely Syed (curtailment of leave - notice) [2013] UKUT 00144 (IAC) and guidance in Patel and thus had been wrong to dismiss the appeal.
3. Permission to appeal was initially refused but granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Plimmer on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier Tribunal Judge had reversed the burden of proof set out in Syed.
4. Before me for the Home Office Mr Singh accepted that the judge had erred in that he had failed to comply with what was said in the head note in Syed namely that the Secretary of State had to be able to prove that notice of such a communication was communicated to the person concerned in order for it to be effective and the Secretary of State could not rely upon deemed postal service. He accepted that the Home Office could also not rely on the email. As such it was said that the decision of the judge was not in accordance with the law and the matter should be remitted to the Secretary of State to allow service to be effected. Mr Patel for the Appellant agreed with this proposed course of action.
5. I therefore find that the judge did err in law and of consent it is appropriate to set the judge's decision aside and remit the case back to the Secretary of State to intimate a fresh decision to the Appellant.
Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I set aside the decision.
I remit the appeal to the Secretary of State.
No anonymity direction is required or made.


Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge J G Macdonald