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 >> IA502582013 [2014] UKAITUR IA502582013 (5 September 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/IA502582013.html Cite as: [2014] UKAITUR IA502582013 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/50258/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
| Heard at Glasgow | Determination Promulgated |
| On 05 September 2014 | |
|
|
|
Before
The President, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey and
Upper Tribunal Judge Dawson
Between
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and
ZULFIQAR ROBINA
Respondent
Representation:
Appellant: Mr Matthews, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Respondent: Mr Bryce (Advocate), instructed by Mackinlay & Suttie Solicitors
DECISION
1. By a decision dated 02 July 2013, the Appellant refused the Respondent’s application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The refusal was based on the Respondent’s failure to provide an approved English language comprehension certificate. The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal.
2. Since the promulgation of the first instance decision, the Appellant has secured the requisite certificate. She did so on 28 April 2014. We were informed that this was transmitted to the Appellant on 15 May 2014. Regrettably, it appears to have received no attention.
3. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr Matthews conceded that the certificate satisfies the requirements of paragraph 284 of the Immigration Rules and applied to withdraw the appeal. We acceded to his application, having first drawn attention to the wholly unsatisfactory terms in which the application for permission to appeal was couched. The fundamental flaw was to identify, clearly or at all, the error of law said to infect the first instance Tribunal’s decision. In this context, we take the opportunity of highlighting the recent decision of the Upper Tribunal in Nixon (permission to appeal: grounds) [2014] UKUT 368 (IAC).
ORDER
4. The Appellant is granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Thus the decision of the FtT is affirmed.
Signed:
THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY
PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Date: 03 September 2014
