IA/31248/2013

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 10 Apr 2017
• Promulgation date: 26 Apr 2017
• Publication date: 23 Jun 2022
• Last updated on: 23 Jun 2022

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/31248/2013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10th April 2017
On 26th April 2017



Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

Usman Mukhtar
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms S Iengar, Counsel, instructed by Morgan Mark Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant is a male citizen of Pakistan born on 23rd January 1990. He first entered the United Kingdom with leave as a student in May 2011. On 24th September 2012 he applied for leave to remain on the basis of his relationship with a woman known as Aneesa Khan. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent’s letter of 9th July 2013. The Appellant appealed, and his appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Wellesley-Cole (the Judge) sitting at Taylor House on 1st September 2016. She decided to dismiss the appeal for the reasons given in her Decision dated 15th September 2016. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 16th February 2017 such permission was granted.
Error of Law
2. I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside. It is recorded in the Judge’s Decision that the appeal was heard and decided in the absence of the Appellant or anybody representing him. At paragraph 3 of the decision it states that “this matter proceeded by way of oral submissions”, although the only representations made on behalf of the Appellant were a Skeleton Argument submitted in advance.
3. The grounds of application state that the appeal was listed for hearing but adjourned on no less than seven occasions prior to the hearing on 1st September 2016. The adjournments were to await the outcome of proceedings in the Family Court. No Notice of Hearing in respect of the hearing listed for 1st September 2016 was received by the Appellant or his representatives.
4. At the hearing before me, Mr Tufan acknowledged that it appeared to be the case that the Appellant was denied a fair hearing.
5. I find an error of law in the decision of the Judge to hear and dispose of the appeal in the absence of the Appellant. There is no reason for me to doubt that the Appellant and his representatives did not receive a proper Notice of Hearing. In reaching that decision, the Judge failed to take account of the provisions of Rule 28 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014, and also the overriding objective, and particularly that contained in Rule 2(2)(c) of those Rules. There is no reference to either in the Judge’s Decision.
Notice of Decision
6. 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 that decision.
The decision in the appeal will be remade in the First-tier Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7.2.(a) of the Practice Statements.
Anonymity
7. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order for anonymity. I was not asked to do so and indeed find no reason to do so.



Signed Dated 25th April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton