OA006382013

The term Appellant refers to the Appellant before the First-tier Tribunal and Respondent refers to the Secretary of State. The Appellant applied to enter the UK as the spouse of a PBS migrant who, at the time of the application and until recently, was in the UK. The application was refused for the reasons set out in the Refusal Notice of the 12 th of November 2012, these are referred to below. The Appellant's appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Del Fabbro on the 21 st of November 2013 and allowed in a determination promulgated on the 24 th of December 2013.

The Respondent took issue with the determination and the findings of the Judge and sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. This was granted by Judge Heynes on the 26 th of March 2014. The case first came before me on the 7 th of May 2014 in Birmingham when I indicated that I was satisfied that there was an error of law in relation to whether the Appellant had sought to frustrate the immigration rules. I also indicated that there was no error in relation to a failure to grant the Respondent's application for an adjournment and that reasons would be given in a later determination.

There was a further hearing on the 16 th of July 2014. By that time the Respondent had served additional evidence but that was late under the directions that had been given. In the circumstances the case was again adjourned for the Appellant's representative to take instructions on the evidence that had been provided by the Secretary of State.

The listing directions for the hearing on the 23 rd of October 2014 were sent out on the 10 th of September 2014. On the 22 nd of October 2014 at 18.05 the Appellant's representatives sent a fax to the Upper Tribunal indicating that they had received a letter from the Appellant, which was attached, indicating that he wished to withdraw his appeal.

The Appellant�s letter of the 22 nd of October 2014 was to the effect that the Sponsor's sponsorship had been cancelled and she was now back in Pakistan, as she had left the UK permanently he did not wish to pursue the appeal. I am satisfied that the Appellant has had sufficient time to instruct his representatives in relation to the matters under appeal and to discuss the merits of continuing with the case and the consequences of the decision not to contest the Secretary of State�s appeal.