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

IAC-FH-AR-V1

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/48728/2013

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 31st October 2014	On 5th November 2014

 

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVIDGE

 

 

Between

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant

 

and

 

BHAVISH KUMAR SHIW-PURSAD

 

 

Respondent

 

Representation:

 

For the Appellant: Mr R Megha, Home Office Presenting Officer

For the Respondent: Miss R Petersen, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

 

1.             The matter comes before me on grounds from the Secretary of State who complains that the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Prior promulgated on 19^th August 2014 is vitiated by legal error in that when the judge allowed the appeal to the limited extent that it was otherwise not in accordance with the law for failure to reveal the policy, the subject of the reasons for refusal letter, there was in fact no procedural unfairness which could have made any difference to the outcome of the consideration of the Appellant's application.

2.             The judge at [17] noted that the exercise of discretion by the Respondent must be exercised with procedural fairness if it is to be exercised in accordance with the law. The judge further noted that the reasons for refusal set out matters apparently contained in her policy which were pertinent to the decision and which were not available to the Appellant, either in the preparation of his application, or in the appeal before the judge.

3.             Mr Megha argued that the failure to provide the policy relied on demonstrated an absence of fairness in process which was sufficient to justify the conclusion of the judge.

4.             Miss Petersen for the Respondent acknowledged that there was unfairness in the process adopted by the Respondent and indicated that whilst she did not have instructions to, and so was not in a position to withdraw the grounds of the application before me, she acknowledged that there was force in the fairness arguments raised as determinative by the judge and was unable to assist me with any detailed submission in support of the grounds challenging the decision.

5.             It is trite law that issues of fairness of process are entitled to consideration outside of issues of merit of the decision. In light of the submissions I am satisfied that the judge’s decision reveals no material error of law requiring me to set it aside, and it stands.

 

 

 

Signed E DAVIDGE Date 5^th November 2014

 

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davidge