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 >> UI2023003380 [2023] UKAITUR UI2023003380 (12 September 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2023/UI2023003380.html Cite as: [2023] UKAITUR UI2023003380 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2023-003380 |
|
|
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/50427/2023 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 12 September 2023
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN
Between
NM
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Order Regarding Anonymity
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
DECISION AND REASONS
1. This decision has been made pursuant to rule 34 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
2. The appellant applied for permission to appeal against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Mill. The grounds submit, inter alia, that the decision was procedurally unfair because the judge refused to adjourn the hearing.
3. Permission was granted by the First-tier Tribunal.
4. In the respondent's Rule 24 response dated 24 August 2023, the respondent accepts that the judge materially erred by proceeding with the hearing when it was unfair to do so and that the decision should be set aside.
5. Given that the parties are in agreement that the decision should be set aside I have decided to make a decision on the papers setting aside the decision. Moreover, as the agreed error is that it was unfair to proceed with the hearing, I have decided, in accordance with para. 7.2(a) of the Practice Statement, to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh.
Notice of Decision
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.
D. Sheridan
Upper Tribunal Judge Sheridan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
25 August 2023
