- Case title:
- Appellant name:
- Status of case: Unreported
- Hearing date:
- Promulgation date:
- Publication date:
- Last updated on:
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Ce-File Number: UI-2022-000958
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/02734/2020
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 01st March 2023
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CANAVAN
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JOLLIFFE
Md ABDULLAH AL-MAMUN
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
For the Appellant: No appearance or representation
For the Respondent: Mr Avery Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 9 February 2023
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant in this case is a Bangladeshi national. He appeals against a decision dated 17 November 2021 of FTTJ I Ross to refuse his appeal against the decision of the Respondent dated 5 March 2020 to refuse his claim for asylum. He was granted permission to appeal by UTJ Allen by an Order dated 20 May 2022.
2. FTTJ Ross’ determination was predicated on a series of adverse credibility findings which he made regarding the Appellant – see paragraphs 22-28 of his judgment.
3. The Appellant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that he had been properly served with the hearing notice, which had been sent by post and by email to the addresses specified on his original application form. His representatives Duncan Lewis had also been served. They have now come off the record due to being unable to obtain instructions from the Appellant – see their letter dated 20 January 2023.
4. Mr Avery informed the Tribunal that within the Appellant’s CID notes there was an entry dated 4 October 2022 from an officer employed on the Voluntary Returns Scheme. The Appellant was recorded as having said that he had a valid passport and a ticket to fly back to Bangladesh. He had been offered VRS. To Mr Avery’s knowledge the Appellant has not been in contact with the Respondent’s officers since then.
5. We are satisfied that the combination of these two pieces of evidence is sufficient to show on the balance of probabilities that it is likely that the appellant has left the country.
6. In the circumstances Mr Avery invited us to treat the appeal as having been abandoned as per section 92(8) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and we do treat it as abandoned. Accordingly and for completeness, the First Tier Tribunal judgment stands, and the Upper Tribunal takes no further action.
Notice of Decision
The appeal before the Upper Tribunal is treated as abandoned
Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is not granted anonymity.
Signed Date: 13 February 2023
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Jolliffe