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 >> IA432842013 [2015] UKAITUR IA432842013 (23 July 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2015/IA432842013.html Cite as: [2015] UKAITUR IA432842013 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43284/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Decision and Reasons Promulgated |
|
On 16 th July 2015 |
On 23 rd July 2015 |
|
|
|
Before
upper tribunal judge MARTIN
Between
MR MOHAMMAD SHAFAYET HOSSAIN
ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE
Appellant
and
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondents
Representation :
For the Appellant: The Appellant in person
For the Respondents: Miss A Holmes (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Appellant with regard to a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Scott-Baker) promulgated on 6 th January 2015 by which she dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to refuse him leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant and to remove him to Bangladesh.
2. The grounds on which permission to appeal was granted by a First-tier Tribunal Judge argue that the Judge erred in failing to take into account evidence that was before her.
3. It is unfortunate that, having paid for an oral hearing the Appellant did not attend the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal and asked that it be decided on the papers. Had he attended he could have referred the Judge to the relevant evidence.
4. Nevertheless it is apparent that the Judge had before her the Appellant's bundle because she refers to it. However she states that the there was no bank evidence submitted by the Appellant since the document verification report. That was not the case. There was a bank statement contained in the bundle that was not taken into account. As the Secretary of State has not had the opportunity to check the document and the fact that the Appellant wished to adduce further evidence that had not been seen before by the Secretary of State and thus its veracity not checked, the appropriate way forward is to set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision as containing a material error of law in not taking into account evidence that was before it and remitting it to the First-tier Tribunal for a full rehearing on all matters.
5. The documents were copied and provided to the Home Office Presenting Officer so that they can be checked.
6. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.
Signed Date 22 nd July 2015
Upper Tribunal Judge Martin
