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 >> OA050612014 [2015] UKAITUR OA050612014 (21 July 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2015/OA050612014.html Cite as: [2015] UKAITUR OA50612014, [2015] UKAITUR OA050612014 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IAC-FH-CK-V1
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/05061/2014
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House |
Decision and Reasons Promulgated |
On 16 June 2015 |
On 21 July 2015 |
Determination prepared 16 June 2015 |
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY
Between
ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER - NEW DELHI
Appellant
and
Mrs Shakuntala Pandey
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr S Whitwell, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: None
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, a citizen of India born on 10 September 1940, appealed against a decision of the Entry Clearance Officer dated 28 March 2014 who refused her entry clearance as an adult dependent relative. Her appeal was allowed in the First-tier but when the matter came before me sitting with The Honourable Mr Justice McGowan on 28 April 2015 we set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and ordered that the appeal proceed to a hearing afresh.
2. The appellant's representatives thereafter sought to withdraw the appeal but as this was an appeal in the Upper Tribunal they were unable to do so.
3. I now formally dismiss the appellant's appeal as I consider that she has not proved, on the evidence before the Entry Clearance Officer when the application was made, that she qualified for leave to enter under the terms of the Immigration Rules.
4. It appears that since the application was refused the appellant's health and circumstances have considerably deteriorated and it is appropriate that the appellant's circumstances, as they are now, are considered by the Entry Clearance Officer when he considers a fresh application.
5. As it is, however, the determination of the Judge of the First-tier Tribunal having been set aside I formally dismiss this appeal.
Notice of Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Signed Date
Upper Tribunal Judge McGeachy