 |
[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 >> IA426992013 & ors [2014] UKAITUR IA426992013 (22 September 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/IA426992013.html Cite as: [2014] UKAITUR IA426992013 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/42699/2013
IA/42702/2013
IA/42704/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
| Heard at Stoke | Determination Sent |
| On 19th September 2014 | On 22nd September 2014 |
| Signed 19th September, 2014 |
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY
Between
GODWIN ARIKIBE
CHINYERE ARIKIBE
CHINONSO C ARIKIBE
Appellants
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
(The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, rule 17, and
The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005, rule 17)
1. The appellants are a family from Nigeria. The Second and Third named appellant’s appeals are entirely dependant on the First named appellant who is the husband of the second named appellant and father of the Third named appellant.
2. Future references to “the appellant” are to the First named appellant.
3. The appellant, made application to the respondent on 19th August 2013 for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 2 Migrant under the points based scheme. The respondent refused that application and the appellant appealed to the First Tier Tribunal.
4. First Tier Tribunal Judge VA Osborne refused that appeal and First Tier Tribunal Judge Page granted leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
5. At the hearing, I drew Mr Harrison’s attention to the fact that the refusal notice appeared to refer the wrong clarification under the Occupational Codes of Practice. He told me that it had contained a typing error and should have referred to SOC Code 3543, but at a higher level that the level at which the appellant made application.
6. He indicated that the Secretary of State would withdraw the decision and issue a further refusal letter giving a fresh right of appeal.
7. That decision operates as a withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s case before the Upper Tribunal and the First-tier Tribunal, pursuant to rules 17 of the Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal Procedure Rules, respectively.
8. On behalf of the Upper Tribunal, and in my capacity as a judge of the First-tier Tribunal, I consent to those withdrawals. There is therefore no longer an outstanding appeal before either Tribunal.
Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley