[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 >> IA005922013 [2013] UKAITUR IA005922013 (16 December 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2013/IA005922013.html Cite as: [2013] UKAITUR IA005922013, [2013] UKAITUR IA5922013

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/00592/2013

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Prepared at Field House On the Papers	Determination Promulgated
On 29 November 2013	On 16 December 2013
	…………………………………

 

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG

 

 

 

Between

 

nitin krishna shetty

 

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

 

Respondent

 

 

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

 

 

1.             The appellant, who is a national of India born on 12 February 1989, has appealed against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hopkinson, who had dismissed his appeal against the refusal of the respondent to vary his leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Student. At the same time as refusing the appellant's application, the respondent also made a decision to remove the appellant by way of directions under Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

2.             On 15 July 2013 I refused permission to appeal against the substantive decision, but gave the appellant permission to appeal limited to arguing that the removal decision was not in accordance with the law. The following day, in a document entitled “Decision and Directions”, I set out the provisional view of the Tribunal that the appellant’s appeal against the removal decision should be allowed without a hearing, to the extent that the respondent's decision to remove the appellant was not in accordance with the law, for the reasons set out in the grounds in support of the application for permission to appeal.

3.             I stated further that before so ordering, the Tribunal would considerer any representations made on behalf of the respondent as to why this appeal should not be allowed to this limited extent, so long as such representations were filed with the Tribunal and served on the appellant by no later than 7 days after service of this decision.

4.             Following service of this decision on the parties, and of my decision granting limited position to appeal, a response was received from the respondent, dated 31 July 2013, in which the respondent expressed agreement with the Tribunal's provisional view. No further representations have been received from or on behalf of the appellant.

5.             It appears that the file was mislaid and it has only just been placed before me, containing the response from the respondent referred to above. In light of this response I now make the decision which I indicated I intended to make, for the reasons set out in my earlier Decision.

Decision

I set aside the determination of the First-tier Tribunal as containing a material error of law and substitute the following decision:

The appeal against the respondent's substantive decision, refusing to vary the appellant's leave to remain in the UK as a Tier 4 (General) Student is dismissed.

The appeal against the respondent's simultaneous decision to remove the appellant by way of directions under Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is allowed to the limited extent that this decision was not in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

Signed: Dated: 10 December 2013

 

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Craig