RP/00076/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 19 Oct 2016
• Promulgation date: 18 Nov 2016
• Publication date: 15 Sep 2020
• Last updated on: 15 Sep 2020

The decision

IAC-FH-AR-V2

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: rp/00076/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 October 2016
On 18 November 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN


Between

secretary of state for the home department
Appellant
and

BINYAM BEYENE GHEBREMEHARI
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E Tufan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Respondent appeared in person


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The respondent Mr Ghebremehari, to whom I shall refer hereafter as the appellant, as he was before the First-tier Judge, appealed to a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal against the respondent's decision of 21 August 2015 to revoke his status of indefinite leave to remain. The judge allowed that appeal and the Secretary of State, hereafter referred to as the respondent, as she was before the judge, was granted permission to appeal that decision to the Upper Tribunal.
2. At the hearing on 19 September 2016 before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley, Mr Tufan, who also appeared on that occasion, drew the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the relevant decision had been made after 6 April 2015 and as a consequence of changes in appeal rights and the Immigration Act 2014 there was no right of appeal and the First-tier Judge had had no jurisdiction. The appellant's then representative said that he was completely taken by surprise by this and needed time to consider the matter and undertake research. The hearing was accordingly adjourned.
3. Subsequently the previous representative came off the record on 14 October 2016 and Mr Ghebremehari appeared in person.
4. I explained to him that the position was as had been set out at the earlier hearing, and the judge had erred in law in allowing his appeal since he had no jurisdiction to decide the matter since in light of the Immigration Act 2014 there is no longer a right of appeal in respect of this kind of decision. I understood from Mr Tufan that Mr Ghebremehari has now made a human rights application, and I explained to him that I had no alternative but to conclude that the judge had had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal and therefore the decision allowing it had to be set aside, but that he would receive in due course a response from the Home Office to his human rights claim and, if the decision were adverse to him, would be able to appeal that decision.
5. The judge did not have jurisdiction to decide an appeal in this case since there was no appeal right against the decision and as a consequence the decision is set aside.


Signed Date

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen