Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-NL-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/47984/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 30 August 2016
On 01 September 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY

Between

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

MRS SANA ARSHAD
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Walker, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr J Waithe, Counsel instructed by Calices Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT
1. The Secretary of State appeals with permission against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Wellesley-Cole who in a determination promulgated on 4 February 2016 allowed the appeal of Mrs Sana Arshad, the appellant in the First-tier Tribunal, against a decision of the Secretary of State made on 11 November 2014 refusing her application for leave to remain and giving directions under Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for her removal from the United Kingdom.
2. In this determination although the Secretary of State is the appellant before me, I will for ease of reference refer to her as the respondent as she was the respondent before the First-tier and similarly I will refer to Mrs Sana Arshad as the appellant as she was the appellant in the First-tier.
3. The central issue in this case before the judge was an allegation by the Secretary of State that the appellant had studied at a particular college when in fact the appellant had claimed to have studied at another college the respondent alleged therefore that the had been deception. The Secretary of State had no evidence before her to prove that the appellant had not studied at the college at which she claimed to have studied but had studied at the college where the Secretary of State said that she had studied.
4. In order to obtain evidence that the respondent was correct in making the allegation as to where the appellant had studied the Presenting Officer applied for an adjournment. The application for adjournment was refused by Judge Wellesley-Cole who gave, I consider, adequate reasons for so refusing the application. She referred quite clearly to the interests of justice in this case. Indeed she clearly had in mind the relevant Procedure Rules which emphasised the importance of timely consideration of issues in appeals and decisions being made as soon as practicable provided the duty of fairness was met.
5. The grounds of appeal before me refer only to the issue of the adjournment. I consider that the judge was quite entitled to reach the conclusion which she did reach and I am fortified in that decision when I consider the chronology in this case in that the appellant's application was made on 18 November 2013, the refusal was in November the following year and the appeal hearing was on 19 January 2016. The respondent therefore had had over two years to obtain the relevant evidence which would be required to show that deception had taken place.
6. Moreover, Mr Walker has informed me today that there is still no evidence on the file which could support the allegation made. I therefore consider that the judge was entitled to refuse the application and on that basis I dismiss the Secretary of State's appeal.
7. I would add that there are clear Article 8 issues in this case given that the appellant is the mother and wife of British citizens and it could well have been the case that the judge would have been entitled to allow the appeal on that basis but however that is not the issue before me which, as I have said is solely relating to the issue of the adjournment. The decision of the judge in that respect was quite clearly open to her and was proportionate and fair. I therefore dismiss the Secretary of State's appeal.

Notice of Decision
The decision of the Judge in the First-tier allowing the appeal contained no error of law and shall stand.

Signed Date

Upper Tribunal Judge McGeachy