Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
              The appellant did not attend the hearing before us and was not represented. He had not sought an adjournment or explained his absence. He had failed to respond to previous Tribunal directions. The respondent had sent him a copy of the bundle and written submissions on which it sought to rely. Despite this, the appellant had ceased to engage actively with his appeal following a previous adjourned hearing, at which he had been legally represented.
              It is necessary to set out the litigation history, as it reflects on how the respondent now resists the appellant's appeal.
              The appellant had appealed on 6 April 2021 to the First-tier Tribunal on 6 April 2021 against the respondent's decision to make a deportation order against him on 24 March 2021, pursuant to Regulations 23 and 27 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 ('the Regulations'). The context was of the appellant's criminal offending.
              The appellant's appeal was heard by Judge Dilks, (the 'Judge') who, in a decision of 28 January 2022, dismissed his appeal.
              We briefly recite the appellant's immigration history, as recorded by the Judge.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.