IA015992013

The appellant Mrs Manpreet Kaur Sandhu is one of two appellants, the other being her husband, whose appeal was heard before First-tier Tribunal Judge Hembrough on 22 April 2013. His determination was promulgated on 26 April 2013. In the determination in relation to the appellant with whom I am concerned the judge dismissed the appeal.

The broad circumstances are these. On 10 May 2011 Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant leave was granted to the appellant or her husband as valid until 12 July 2014. A letter was prepared on 27 March 2012 written to the appellant curtailing her leave to 26 May 2012. That was a period two months, hence on the balance of probabilities that letter was not served. The reason why the curtailment decision was made was that the sponsor�s licence was revoked on 7 July 2011.

On 9 January 2013 it is accepted that the letter of 27 March 2012 was communicated. That was a finding that was made by Judge Hembrough, and so as from that date the applicant knew of the curtailment decision. At the same time removal directions were served.

There are arguments that were advanced by the appellant that the decision under challenge is also the decision to curtail leave and that was an immigration decision in itself which falls within paragraph 82(2)(d) being a refusal to vary a person�s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. I am not satisfied that that is a matter which is before the Upper Tribunal. The appeal that is before me is a challenge to the Section 10 decision.

At the conclusion of my judgment it has been drawn to my attention that it was not Section 82(2)(d) that was referred to but was Section 82(2)(e). That was not the way the argument was advanced before me but for the reasons that I have already given I am not satisfied that there is an immigration decision falling within Section 82(2)(e) which is before the Upper Tribunal in this decision.