RA, Re Leave to Appeal

[2] The appellant has been granted leave to appeal to this court, on grounds which are to the following general effect. Immigration Judge Macleman is said to have erred in law in finding that there had been any material error of law committed by Immigration Judge Quigley. He therefore had no jurisdiction to order the rehearing of the appeal. Immigration Judge Quigley's decision should therefore have stood.

[3] The first alleged error of law we have to consider is set out in Immigration Judge Macleman's decision (under reference to the grounds on which the respondent applied for reconsideration) in the following terms:

"(c)... the AIT ... erred by finding that although no documentary evidence regarding the availability of similar medical treatment in Pakistan was before it, that it is unlikely that the appellant's wife would be able to obtain similar treatment in Pakistan. ...the conclusion reached is little more than an opinion as the AIT has not referred to any objective evidence...".

That ground referred to a passage in Immigration Judge Quigley's decision at paragraph 24, which was in the following terms:

[4] That ground was not soundly based. Immigration Judge Quigley had before her evidence from the appellant and his wife that she "would certainly not receive any similar medical treatment in Pakistan " if they were removed from the United Kingdom . It was a matter for the Immigration Judge to consider that evidence and accept it or reject it. It did not require as a matter of law to be supported by documentary evidence or by "objective evidence": that is to say, evidence from an independent source. Immigration Judge Macleman however said in relation to this ground: