BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> IA014362015 [2015] UKAITUR IA014362015 (27 August 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2015/IA014362015.html Cite as: [2015] UKAITUR IA14362015, [2015] UKAITUR IA014362015 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/01436/2015
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Glasgow |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 25 August 2015 |
On 27 August 2015 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN
Between
SYED ASHOOR HASAN KAZMI
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: no appearance
For the Respondent: Mrs S Saddiq, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against a determination by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cox, dismissing his appeal against refusal of further leave to remain.
2. The appellant was content for his case to be dealt with "on the papers" in the First-tier Tribunal. Having been issued with notice of the hearing in the Upper Tribunal, he did not appear, was not represented, and had sent no communication to the UT. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
3. The grounds amount only to disagreement with outcome in the First-tier Tribunal. They do not demonstrate that the making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of any error on a point of law, such that its decision ought to be set aside.
4. The specific point on which permission to appeal was granted is not in the grounds. Judge Fisher, granting permission, thought it arguable that Judge Cox erred in stating that failure to provide biometric details led to mandatory rather than discretionary refusal.
5. It is doubtful whether that point should be entertained by the Upper Tribunal, not having been raised at any stage by the appellant. In any event, even if the issue is only one on which leave to remain should normally (not always) be refused, the appellant made no case why discretion should be exercised in his favour. His case properly failed on this issue alone.
6. The determination of the First-tier Tribunal shall stand.
7. No anonymity direction has been requested or made.
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman
25 August 2015
