United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/34765/2014

IA/34770/2014

IA/34775/2014

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Field House	Decision and Reasons Promulgated
11 March 2016	On 14 March 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JORDAN

 

Between

 

(1)    Gift Obuzor

(2)    Eunice Obuzor

(3)    PO (a minor)

Appellants

and

 

The Secretary Of State For The Home Department

Respondent

 

 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL

in relation to the second and third appellants

pursuant to Rule 17 (5) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

 

1.                  By a notice sent to the parties of 19 November 2015, the first appellant's appeal was withdrawn with the consent of the Tribunal. His appeal is no longer before the Tribunal. Indeed, in a letter dated 29 February 2016, supported by a copy of his passport with the appropriate vignette, he says he has settled status in the United Kingdom (indefinite leave to remain).

2.                  By letter dated 3 February 2016 (received on 3 March 2016) the second appellant wrote on behalf of her minor daughter, the third appellant, (aged 12, born 16 December 2003) that she wished to withdraw her daughter's appeal to enable her (as it is expressed) 'to make a premium application based on the ten-year rule'.

3.                  By letters each dated 29 February 2016 (received 1 and 2 March 2016 respectively) the first appellant notified the Upper Tribunal that that he, too, wished to withdraw his daughter's appeal to enable her 'to make a premium application based on the ten-year rule'.

4.                  Pursuant to Rule 17(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, a notice of withdrawal will not take effect until the Upper Tribunal consents to the withdrawal, which I now give. The third appellant's appeal is withdrawn.

5.                  In the same letters, it is expressly stated that the second appellant did not wish to withdraw her appeal. She reserved her right to do so 'until I indicate on a later date'. However, in a subsequent letter dated 10 March 2016, (received 10 March 2016) the second appellant indicated that she, too, wished to withdraw her appeal so that she, too, is enabled 'to make a premium application based on the ten-year rule'. As I now give my consent for her to do so, the second appellant's appeal is also withdrawn.

OUTCOME

 

(1)                The first appellant's appeal has been withdrawn;

(2)                The second appellant's appeal is withdrawn by operation of this notice;

(3)                The third appellant's appeal is withdrawn by operation of this notice.

(4)                There are no longer any of the above appeals before the Upper Tribunal.

                                    

ANDREW JORDAN

JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL