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 >> IA109272013 & IA109282013 [2014] UKAITUR IA109272013 (4 February 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/IA109272013.html Cite as: [2014] UKAITUR IA109272013 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/10927/2013
IA/10928/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
| Heard at Field House | Determination Promulgated |
| On 3 February 2014 | On 4 February 2014 |
| Oral judgment | ………………………………… |
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER
Between
ms Chandi Viyanga Wijesekara Arachchige
mr Sarbo Devin Welapura
Appellants
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Bellara, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr T Melvin, Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The applicant had leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant until 8 June 2012. On 24 September 2012 she made an application to vary that leave to remain to Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. That application was refused on 20 March 2013 and a decision was also made to remove her by way of directions under Section 47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
2. Unfortunately it was not noticed until today that the decision refusing to vary leave to remain is a non-appealable decision as defined by Section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. There is therefore no appeal against the decision dated 20 March 2013 to refuse to vary her leave to remain.
3. There was an appeal against the decision to remove her by way of directions under Section 47. That appeal was successful before the First-tier Tribunal in a decision dated 16 September 2013 and that decision therefore stands, namely that the decision to remove her in accordance with Section 47 was not in accordance with the law.
4. There is no error of law. The appeal before me is dismissed.
Signed Date 4th February 2014
Upper Tribunal Judge Coker
