IA/48728/2013

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 31 Oct 2014
• Promulgation date: 5 Nov 2014
• Publication date: 24 Feb 2015
• Last updated on: 24 Feb 2015

The decision

IAC-FH-AR-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/48728/2013


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 31st October 2014
On 5th November 2014




Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVIDGE


Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant

and

BHAVISH KUMAR SHIW-PURSAD


Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr R Megha, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Miss R Petersen, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. The matter comes before me on grounds from the Secretary of State who complains that the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Prior promulgated on 19th August 2014 is vitiated by legal error in that when the judge allowed the appeal to the limited extent that it was otherwise not in accordance with the law for failure to reveal the policy, the subject of the reasons for refusal letter, there was in fact no procedural unfairness which could have made any difference to the outcome of the consideration of the Appellant's application.
2. The judge at [17] noted that the exercise of discretion by the Respondent must be exercised with procedural fairness if it is to be exercised in accordance with the law. The judge further noted that the reasons for refusal set out matters apparently contained in her policy which were pertinent to the decision and which were not available to the Appellant, either in the preparation of his application, or in the appeal before the judge.
3. Mr Megha argued that the failure to provide the policy relied on demonstrated an absence of fairness in process which was sufficient to justify the conclusion of the judge.
4. Miss Petersen for the Respondent acknowledged that there was unfairness in the process adopted by the Respondent and indicated that whilst she did not have instructions to, and so was not in a position to withdraw the grounds of the application before me, she acknowledged that there was force in the fairness arguments raised as determinative by the judge and was unable to assist me with any detailed submission in support of the grounds challenging the decision.
5. It is trite law that issues of fairness of process are entitled to consideration outside of issues of merit of the decision. In light of the submissions I am satisfied that the judge's decision reveals no material error of law requiring me to set it aside, and it stands.



Signed E DAVIDGE Date 5th November 2014


Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davidge