IA243882015

In any event, there is a fundamental problem. The Secretary of State's decision includes, towards the very end of the decision letter, a certificate under section 94(1) of the 2002 Act. A certificate is available in a case where the Secretary of State finds that a human rights claim is clearly unfounded. The effect of the certificate is that the appellant must bring his appeal from outside the United Kingdom. There has been no challenge to the certificate.

In the light of the certificate, the First-tier Tribunal Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Her decision to proceed amounts to a material error of law, such that the decision must be set aside and remade. Were it necessary to do so, I would find in the light of the evidence before the judge that the ties established by Mr Ahmad since he arrived as a student in December 2009 are relatively insubstantial and have developed while he has had precarious immigration status. If she were properly able to proceed, she would have been entitled to conclude that those ties did not outweigh the public interest.

Remaking the decision is straightforward. In the light of guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Virk [2013] EWCA Civ 652 , which was also a case in which the First-tier Tribunal had no jurisdiction, the correct course is to remake the decision and then dismiss it.