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 >> IA327932014 [2016] UKAITUR IA327932014 (19 February 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2016/IA327932014.html Cite as: [2016] UKAITUR IA327932014 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/32793/2014
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Field House |
Determination Promulgated |
|
8 February 2016 |
19 February 2016 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JORDAN
Between
The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
Appellant
and
Balogun
Respondent
DECISION AND REASONS
1. In order to avoid the parties in the unnecessary incurrence of costs, I have decided to make a decision in accordance with Rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 without a hearing.
2. The Secretary of State seeks an order that the First-tier Tribunal Judge (i) made an error of law and (ii) the First-tier Tribunal Judge should have 'remitted' the matter back to the Secretary of State for her to make a fresh decision. (In fact the form of order is that the Secretary of State's decision was unlawful and accordingly the appellant's application remains outstanding for the Secretary of State to make a fresh and lawful decision in accordance with Abdi principles.)
3. By letter received by the Upper Tribunal on 8 February 2016 enclosing a Rule 24 response dated 2 February 2016, Mr Balogun's counsel concedes that the First-tier Tribunal Judge Coutts made an error on a point of law requiring the Secretary of State to make a fresh and lawful decision.
4. The effect of the grounds and the Rule 24 response is that the parties are ad idem and that no further issue remains between them requiring the determination of the Upper Tribunal at a hearing. There is no difference between this situation and a consent order made pursuant to Rule 39(1).
5. If either party objects to my use of Rule 34 in the absence of a consent order signed by the parties, they are at liberty to apply to me to set aside my decision under Rule 43 on notice and on showing cause why the procedure I have adopted is irregular.
DECISION
1. The Judge made an error on a point of law and I re-make the decision to the limited extent of allowing the Secretary of State's appeal and setting aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and substituting a decision in the following terms:
Mr Balogun's application remains outstanding for the Secretary of State to make a fresh and lawful decision.
ANDREW JORDAN
JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
