Immigration

IA004782015

[2015] UKAITUR IA004782015United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments2015

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Judge Frankish considered it arguable that because Judge Bradshaw had been struggling with limited information and a certificate of posting had now been provided, an arguable error of law might have arisen. There were other possible issues of law, such as the fact that the Appellant's extant leave had continued under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971.

When the appeal was called on for hearing, there was no appearance by the Appellant nor any application for an adjournment in consequence. Having satisfied itself that notice of the time, date and place of the hearing had been duly served on the Appellant, and further noting that the Appellant had requested that his initial appeal should be determined on the papers, the tribunal decided that it should proceed in the Appellant's absence and that his appeal could be fairly and justly determined in such absence.

Mr Bramble for the Appellant relied on the rule 24 notice dated 17 July 2015 which the Respondent had served indicating that the onwards appeal was opposed. The Appellant now wished to rely on evidence which he had not placed before the First-tier Tribunal judge. In any event, making due allowance for the fact that the Appellant was unrepresented, there was no supporting evidence to show what documents the certificate of posting related to.

The other point the Appellant had raised concerning QI (Pakistan) [2011] EWCA Civ 614 had merit, in that the Appellant's in time application for further leave to remain meant that his extant Tier 4 (General) Student Migrant leave continued by virtue of section 3C, an authority which the judge had not considered. However the appeal failed in any event because of the Appellant's failure to prove how he lodged the IELTS certificate on which he relied. Thus the determination should stand.

The making of the previous decision did not involve the making of an error on a point of law . The decision stands unchanged

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Full judgment transcript

BAILII · Verbatim mirror

The succinct terms in which the onwards grounds of appeal were drafted indicate that the Appellant has access to well informed legal advice, although the author of the grounds has not identified himself/herself. As Mr Bramble very properly conceded, the judge's discussion of the other element of the appeal (see [13] of the decision) is mistaken in that QI (above) as decided in the Court of Appeal emphasises the importance of section 3C of the Immigration Act when construing paragraph 245ZX(1) of the Immigration Rules. The Appellant should have drawn the judge's attention to relevant authority, given his access to legal assistance. But the judge's error of law cannot be seen as material in that respect, since the appeal was doomed because of the findings made at [9] and [10] of the decision.

The onwards appeal is accordingly dismissed.

DECISION

The making of the previous decision did not involve the making of an error on a point of law . The decision stands unchanged

Signed Dated

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Manuell

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Immigration cases

UI2025004453

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025004453

UI2025003987

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025003987

UI2025004274

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025004274

UI2025005447

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025005447

UI2025001383

[2026] UKAITUR UI2025001383

JR2024LON001256

[2026] UKAITUR JR2024LON001256

Common Room

Discussion

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.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

The making of the previous decision did not involve the making of an error on a point of law . The decision stands unchanged

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.