VA035672014

This is an appeal against a determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Shergill, promulgated on the 17 th February 2015, in which the appeal against the refusal of a grant of entry as a visitor was dismissed.

Permission to appeal was granted as it was said to be arguable that the Judge made inconsistent findings.

There was no attendance on behalf of the Appellant. I am satisfied notice of the hearing has been served upon the Appellant and his UK based sponsor by first class post and there is no evidence of such notice being returned as not having been served. I am satisfied there has been valid service in accordance with the Rules and the fact no explanation has been provided for the lack of attendance, and no application made for an adjournment, means no basis for not proceeding in absence has been made out. I find to do so to be in the interests of justice and fairness.

The grounds of appeal are limited by virtue of section 84(1)(c) of the 2002 Act but do permit a human rights challenge. The Judge records in the determination at paragraph 7 that no human rights grounds were advanced before the First-tier Tribunal.

There is no arguable contradiction in the findings. It is true the sponsor who attended was found to be credible but that is not determinative. The sponsor's mother is ill but the Judge specifically noted in paragraph 15 that the sponsor did not definitively say that her mother could not fly. It was noted the relationship between the sponsor's mother in the UK and her brother, the Appellant, had been maintained at a distance and the purpose of the visit was for the brother to provide moral support to the sponsor's mother who has medical issues.