Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/50059/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 September 2016
On 03 October 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE STOREY

Between

adnan jamal
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The appellant in person
For the Respondent: Mr B Bramble, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a national of Pakistan. He has a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration dated 30 October 2014 from Glynd?r University. He came to the United Kingdom as a student and received extensions until 28 June 2014. On the same day he applied for a further extension but this was refused on 27 November 2014. The appellant's appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Petherbridge who in a decision sent on 15 January 2016 dismissed it.

2. The appellant's grounds of appeal were essentially twofold: that the judge was wrong to refuse to adjourn; and by failing to appreciate that the appellant had a strong case "as I have provided the Home Office CAS letter on basis the Home Office should grant me further leave to remain under Tier 4 (General)".

3. At the hearing before me the appellant was not represented but appeared in person. I allowed him to make submissions and to respond to all points raised. I also heard from Mr Bramble.

4. The first ground of appeal has no arguable merit. The judge gave careful consideration to the application made to him in writing to adjourn the appeal. At paras 9-14 the judge wrote:

"9. The Hearing was attended by a friend of the Appellant who introduced himself as Mr Kamran of [Ilford]. Mr Kamran had spoken to the Presenting Officer earlier in the day and had said that the Appellant would be unable to attend the Hearing today for the purposes of making an adjournment application because he had overnight fallen downstairs and twisted his ankle. The Presenting Officer had told Mr Kamran that the Court would require medical evidence that the Appellant was, in fact, unable to attend the Hearing of his appeal.

10. No medical evidence has been produced that the Appellant is, in fact, unable to attend his Hearing of his appeal today, even if it had been just to formally apply for an adjournment on account of his solicitors having closed down.

11. I was very much aware of the overriding consideration that had to be given to the Appellant being allowed a fair Hearing of his appeal and with this in mind I considered the appeal file carefully.

12. I noted that the Appellant had been notified of today's Hearing date on the 09 September 2015, as had his solicitors at the time. I am satisfied that the Appellant would have been aware of the Hearing to take place today. He would have been aware of the need to have been prepared for today's Hearing that would have required him to have contacted his solicitors in advance when he would have found out that the firm had been closed down. That he left it until the 04 January 2016 for a Hearing to take place on the 06 January 2016 to make enquiries with regard to his Hearing makes little sense in that his appeal bundle would have been required to have been served at least 5 days before the Hearing date. In fairness to the Appellant he would not have been aware necessarily of the procedural requirements, but to have left making any enquiry, which would have revealed to him the closing down of the solicitors he had instructed until just 2 days before the Hearing date amounts to crass foolishness.

13. As stated, the Appellant has been unable to attend the Hearing today to explain what steps he had taken in advance of the Hearing because it is claimed on his behalf that he has twisted his ankle overnight and is unable to attend. However, he has not produced any medical evidence to show that he has had a medical injury or that that medical injury actually prevents him from attending the Hearing.

14. The Appellant's application for an adjournment was opposed by Ms Martin on behalf of the Respondent who submitted that the appeal should be dismissed relying upon the Respondent's reasons for refusal contained in a letter dated the 27 November 2014."

5. As the appellant acknowledged at the hearing before me, it remains today the case that he has not been able to produce a medical certificate to confirm his medical inability to attend the hearing on 6 January. Nor has he sought to dispute that he had left until two days before the hearing to check what was happening with his solicitors and as a result could not rely on the fact that his solicitors' firm had been closed down by the SRA. In addition, there had already been on adjournment of the appeal, from June 2015 in order to allow the appellant to instruct new solicitors. The first ground is not made out.

6. From the appellant's submissions before me it is clear that the main reason why the appellant wanted his hearing adjourned was in any event so he could have more time to produce a CAS. He accepted that he had not produced a CAS when he applied for an extension of student leave. The appellant's efforts to delay evidence a misunderstanding of the legal position. Unless an applicant for student leave produces a valid CAS at the date of application, he cannot meet the requirements of para 116(a) of Appendix A to the Rules. Indeed from what the appellant told me it does not appear that he has been able, even now, to obtain a valid CAS. That is what the judge found and the judge was entirely right about this point. The only basis on which the judge might nonetheless have allowed the appeal was n Article 8 grounds or unfairness grounds. As regards Article 8,the judge addressed the appellant's Article 8 circumstance in his determination and on the evidence he was entirely justified in concluding that the appellant could not succeed.

7. The appellant's grounds do not raise an issue of fairness but, particularly given that he has not had recent legal assistance and is a litigant in person, I have considered this issue on a de bene esse basis. The factual difficulty for the appellant in seeking to benefit from the established case law on fairness is that he has not been able to show that he notified the respondent of his problems in obtaining a CAS prior to applying in June 2014. In the absence of any notice being given to the respondent making clear why more time was needed for valid reasons to obtain a CAS, it cannot be maintained that the respondent failed to take due account of such difficulties.

8. The appellant produced to me correspondence to show the efforts he has made to obtain a place on an MBA course. I have no jurisdiction to take account of his educational progress since he made his June 2014 application and received a negative decision on it in November 2014. Whether his request to be able to stay longer to complete an MBA in the UK will be considered further is entirely a matter for the respondent. This appeal, however, cannot succeed.

For the above reasons:

The judge did not materially err in law.
His decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal is upheld.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date: 30 September 2016

Dr H H Storey
Judge of the Upper Tribunal