Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-NL-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/32731/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 3 August 2016
On 6 September 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

mr sadaf mubeen chaudhry
(aNONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: No representation
For the Respondent: Mr D Clark, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

The Appellant
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Broe dated 4 February 2016 dismissing the appellant's appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse to grant him leave to remain as a Tier 4 Student and to remove him to Pakistan. The appeal was dealt with on the papers.
2. The grounds argue, first, that the appellant was denied a first hearing as he requested by fax that his appeal be listed for an oral hearing in order that he could make oral submissions and raise human rights arguments. Secondly, it is contended that the judge did not consider a previously allowed determination following the Devaseelan guidelines. Third, it was argued that the respondent failed to exercise her residual discretion to allow the appeal outside the Rules which rendered the decision unlawful.
3. Permission was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Hodgkinson in relation to the first ground only because accompanying the appellant's grounds of application was a letter from the appellant dated 4 December 2015 addressed to the Tribunal in Birmingham whereby he requested an oral hearing and that letter was accompanied by a relevant fax transmission slip of the same date.
4. Grounds 2 and 3 were not granted permission.
5. I make clear that at the hearing before me the appellant failed to attend but I am satisfied that he was notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing and indeed attempted to submit further documentation to the Tribunal. I concluded that it was in the interests of justice and fair to proceed with the hearing in the light of the overriding objective of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, as amended.
6. Despite the appellant not complying with Rule 15(2A) I did consider his witness statement as being his submissions and these submissions were shown to Mr Clark, the representative for the Secretary of State.
7. Judge Broe considered the appeal was on the papers and dismissed it on the basis that the reasons for refusal letter of the Secretary of State dated 21 December 2015 identified that on 20 May 2015 the appellant was informed that the CAS he had submitted with his application was assigned by the London College of Business Management and Information Technology but that college was not listed as a Tier 4 Sponsor as of that date.
8. The history is as follows. The appellant had first made an application to extend his leave as a Tier 4 (General) Student on 15 January 2014. That was refused and the appellant appealed. First-tier Tribunal decision of Judge Turquet allowed his appeal on 19th May 2014 to the limited extent it be remitted to the Secretary of State. Before the decision was made the Secretary of State checked the register and the college which had assigned the CAS was not on the list. Its licence had been revoked on 6th January 2015. On 20 May 2015 the Secretary of State informed the appellant of this and allowed 60 days to obtain a new sponsor and CAS but he had not provided a new CAS within that period or by the decision on 21st September 2015. This the judge recorded T [6].
9. It is quite clear that the appellant had failed to comply with the Immigration Rules as he was not in possession of a valid CAS. It is a requirement of paragraph 245ZX(c) of the Immigration Rules that the appellant provide a valid CAS with the application.
10. The appellant was advised by the Tribunal on 12 November 2015 that he had indicated that he wanted the appeal to be decided on the papers and that he should "send any written evidence and submissions to the Tribunal and the respondent by 10 December 2015". The appellant did not comply with this and to date has not supplied a valid CAS. Whether giving oral evidence or not he could not comply with the Immigration Rules and thus the decision of the judge, albeit that it was made on the papers, recorded at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 that the judge had given careful consideration to all of the documents and that the CAS provided by the appellant was invalid and he "did not provide another".
11. Although the appellant had appealed on the basis of human rights issues once again no evidence and no particularisation of his human rights claim was submitted despite being invited by the reasons for refusal letter to submit a Statement of Additional Grounds. By the date of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge which was on 4 January 2016 no grounds had been submitted and as I state the appellant had still not provided any further particularisation of his claim and failed to attend the Upper Tribunal hearing.
12. As such, even though there is a letter from the appellant purporting to request an oral hearing dated 4 December 2015 I am not persuaded that his attendance at the hearing in person would have altered or amended the decision in the circumstances, particularly in the light of the evidence and Nasim and others (Article 8) [2014] UKUT 00025 (IAC), and, therefore the decision of Judge Broe contains no material error of law and the decision shall stand.

Signed Date

Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington