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 >> UI2023004014 [2024] UKAITUR UI2023004014 (1 May 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2024/UI2023004014.html Cite as: [2024] UKAITUR UI2023004014 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2023-004014 |
|
First-tier Tribunal No: HU/59327 /2022 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 1 st of May 2024
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS
Between
RUILIN HUANG
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Determined on the papers on 25 April 2024
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Swinnerton "the FtTJ") who, dismissed the appellant's appeal in a decision promulgated on 12 August 2023.
2. The appellant appealed on the basis that further to Nwaigwe (adjournment: fairness) [2014] UKUT 418 (IAC) and SH (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 1284, the judge's decision to refuse an adjournment to permit the 4 witnesses to attend to give oral evidence as to the appellant's 20 years continuous residence, was unfair and procedurally flawed resulting in the lack of a fair hearing. Permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Rimmington on 2 November 2023.
3. The Secretary of State responded to the application in a Rule 24 response dated 9 November 2023 stating that she does not oppose the appeal for permission to appeal and invites the Tribunal to remit the appeal for a further oral hearing. It is therefore accepted that the FtTJ erred in law.
4. On 8 January 2024 directions were issued to the parties stating the following: "Having considered the grounds of appeal, the grant of permission and the Rule 24 response, the grounds have clear merit as conceded by the respondent. I propose to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal for error of law and remit the appeal for fresh consideration. Any representations to the contrary will be considered if received within 14 days of the date of these directions."
5. Since those directions were sent to the parties on 8 January 2024 there has been no further reply or compliance with those directions as noted from the information contained on the CE File and therefore as neither party has dissented from the proposal, I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal for error of law as identified in the grounds of appeal and the grant of permission and as recognised in the 24 response .I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a hearing.
Notice of Decision:
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law; the decision of the FtTJ is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds
Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds
25 April 2024