IA/29873/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 7 Nov 2016
• Promulgation date: 20 Apr 2017
• Publication date: 27 May 2022
• Last updated on: 27 May 2022

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/29873/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 7 November 2016
On 20 April 2017



Before

DR H H STOREY
JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL


Between

Mr Gagandeep Singh
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: None
For the Respondent: Ms A Brocklesby-Weller, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant has permission to challenge the decision of Judge Davidge sent on 16 March 2016 dismissing the appeal against a decision by the respondent to refuse to vary his leave to remain as a student and to remove him by way of directions.

2. The appellant did not attend nor did anyone appear to represent him. No explanation has been provided for his absence. I decided to exercise my discretion to determine the appeal in the absence of one of the parties. I heard briefly from Ms A Brocklesby-Weller.

3. The only ground of appeal concerns the fairness of the decision of the FtT judge (Judge Davidge) not to adjourn the hearing because the appellant had failed to give a satisfactory explanation for his failure to attend.

4. I conclude that the ground is wholly devoid of merit. The judge took careful note of the fact that the day before the hearing the appellant sent a fax with accompanying GP letter stating that because of lumbago and sciatica he had been advised he was not fit for work for three weeks. The judge properly attached weight to (i) the fact that this letter did not state that the appellant was unfit to attend a Tribunal hearing; (ii) the fact that the appellant had not engaged with the appeal process by lodging a bundle in response to Tribunal directions or attaching any evidence; (iii) the grounds did not dispute that the appellant had relied on fake documentation and that he had not submitted all the specified documentation required under the points-based system. The judge properly directed herself as to the need to consider whether an adjournment would comply with rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules 2014, noting that these required, inter alia, that she deal with a case “fairly”. I note further that despite seeking to rely on the fact that he was too sick to attend the hearing before the FtT judge, the appellant has not produced any further medical evidence regarding his medical situation at the relevant time.

5. In addition, it is clear from the appellant’s original grounds, which did not dispute that false documents had been used and that he had not produced all the specified financial documents required that his appeal could not succeed in any event. The judge correctly observed that deception arises by use of false documents even if practised without an applicant’s knowledge (JK (India) [2013] EWCA Civ 1080). As regards the appellant’s human rights, the judge considered these and properly concluded that the appellant had failed to establish any disproportionate interference with his private or family life.

6. For the above reasons the FtT judge did not materially err in law. The judge’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s appeal must stand.




Signed Dated 20 April 2017

Dr H H Storey
Judge of the Upper Tribunal