OA449432006

This is an appeal by the Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad against a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (�AIT�) issued on 04 June 2007 allowing the claimant�s appeal against the decision made on 15 October 2006 refusing to grant him entry clearance as a visitor. In this determination we will refer to the parties as they were before the AIT, the entry clearance officer as the respondent and the claimant as the appellant.

There has been a most unfortunate delay in this appeal being relisted for hearing. The application by the appellant for a visit visa was refused on 15 October 2006. His appeal against that decision was allowed on 04 June 2007 but the respondent applied for and was granted an order for reconsideration notified to the parties on 25 June 2007. The appeal was listed for hearing on 10 August 2007 but adjourned. The file has been inactive ever since, neither party making any enquiry about a fresh hearing date.

The file came to light again in March 2014 and on 1 May 2014 a notice of hearing was issued for 20 May 2014. As the appellant�s last notified address was in Lahore, Pakistan this was not adequate notice and we have deferred making our decision until 56 days has expired from the date the notice was issued. No response has been received from the appellant and we now proceed to reconsider his matter which proceeds by virtue of transitional provisions as an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal against this decision, saying that he was self employed, he owned his own printing business in Lahore and his assets included a house valued at Rs 5 million. He said he had been invited to a conference by the International Council of Graphic Design Associations, an organisation based in Montreal. He had money set aside for the visit and had no intention of staying in the UK in the light of his family responsibilities in Pakistan.

The decision was reviewed by a senior officer and was confirmed. The appellant�s appeal was not a full right of appeal but was limited to the grounds set out in s.84 (1) (b) and (c) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, namely that the decision was unlawful by virtue of s.19B of the Race Relations Act 1976 or unlawful under s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being incompatible with the appellant�s Convention rights.