IA014472014

The Appellant is a citizen of the Philippines born on 14 th January 1981. The Appellant�s immigration history shows that he arrived in the United Kingdom in July 2008 with entry clearance as a student. He was granted further leave to remain in the same capacity until 24 th January 2013. On 12 th December 2012 the Appellant applied for further leave to remain on the basis of his private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. His application was refused on 11 th December 2013 and his appeal against that refusal was allowed by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Malins on 30 th May 2014.

The Respondent�s representative applied for permission to appeal and permission was granted in the Upper Tribunal on 8 th July 2014. Thus the matter came before me for an error of law hearing in the Upper Tribunal on 30 th May 2014. The Appellant was present but was not legally represented. I noted a letter from the Appellant�s representatives, Bespoke Solicitors of Wembley, stating that they would not be representing the Appellant at the hearing before the Upper Tribunal.

For the reasons which I will now give, I decided that the decision by the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law such that it falls to be set aside.

The Appellant was unrepresented before the First-tier Tribunal. He submitted a witness statement which was adopted as his evidence-in-chief. It may be summarised as follows.

The Appellant entered the UK with a valid student visa in July 2008. He completed an NVQ in health and social care but was unable to renew his student visa due to what he describes as a change in his personal circumstances. That prompted him to submit an application based on human rights issues.