Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-CO-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/01016/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at City Centre Tower Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 22nd February 2017
On 3rd March 2017

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

Monia Rani
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

entry clearance officer – new delhi
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: The Sponsor
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a female citizen of India born on 27th July 1988. She applied to the British High Commission, New Delhi, for entry clearance as the wife of the Sponsor, Rakesh Kumar Bhoyoye. That application was refused for the reasons given in a Notice of Decision dated 2nd December 2014, subsequently confirmed on review by an Entry Clearance Manager on 30th July 2015. The Appellant appealed, and her appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Austin (the Judge) sitting at Stoke-on-Trent on 6th April 2016. He decided to dismiss the appeal for the reasons given in his Decision dated 27th April 2016. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 12th September 2016 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. At the hearing before me, the Sponsor appeared unrepresented but was assisted by his brother. He indicated to me that he was happy to proceed without legal representation. He argued that the Judge had erred in law in dismissing the appeal. He referred to the manuscript grounds of application which as regards a potential error of law, only stated that there had been a procedural irregularity in that the Judge had not given the Sponsor the opportunity to explain himself at the hearing in the First-tier Tribunal. Otherwise, the Sponsor said that notwithstanding his illness, he could cope in the United Kingdom if he had the assistance of his wife and child. He had no ties with India, and his illness prevented him from visiting his family in India.
3. In response, Mr Mills referred to the Rule 24 response and argued that there had been no procedural irregularity in the Judge’s conduct of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. It is apparent from what the Judge wrote at paragraphs 22 to 26 inclusive of the Decision that the Sponsor had not been denied an opportunity to speak and put his case fully.
4. At the hearing before me, I reserved my decision which I now give.
5. I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which I therefore do not set aside. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the Sponsor was prevented from addressing the Judge and putting forward his case. The Sponsor was not represented at the hearing in the First-tier Tribunal, but it is clear from the Decision that the Judge had before him much written evidence from the Appellant, and that the Sponsor and his brother addressed the First-tier Tribunal at some length. There is no evidence that the Judge prevented the Sponsor from saying anything, even when he interrupted the evidence of his brother as recorded at paragraph 25 of the decision.
6. For these reasons I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge.

Notice of Decision

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I do not set aside that decision.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Anonymity

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

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton