IA009782015

I have considered whether any parties require the protection of an anonymity direction. No anonymity direction was made previously in respect of this Appellant. Having considered all the circumstances and evidence I do not consider it necessary to make an anonymity direction.

Those representing the Appellant wrote to the court under cover of a letter dated 28 July 2015 requesting that the case be dealt with on the basis of the papers before the court. I am satisfied that the Appellant was aware of the date of hearing as it is referred to in the Solicitors letter and I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to proceed to a hearing in the absence in court of those representing the Appellant as they consent to such a course and it is permitted by Rule 38 of The Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules 2008.

The Appellant, a national of Pakistan was born on 3 April 1981. The Appellant appealed against the decision of the Secretary of State dated 16 December 2014 to refuse to grant an application for leave to remain as a Tier 4 Student and to remove him from the United Kingdom. First-tier Tribunal Judge Lloyd-Smith dismissed the appeal and the Appellant now appeals with permission to this Tribunal.

The background to this appeal is that the Appellant entered the United Kingdom on 15 May 2010 as a Tier 4 Student. That leave was renewed was renewed and due to expire on 25 April 2015. On 25 April 2015 he made the application the refusal of which is the subject of this appeal. The relevant paragraph of the Rules for the purposes of this appeal is 245(c) with reference to paragraph 116(e) of Appendix A and paragraph 245X(d).

The Respondent refused the application because the Appellant could not be awarded the 30 points claimed for a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) as the sponsor on the CAS he provided was no longer on the Tier 4 Sponsor Register . The Appellant had been informed of this on 26 September and given 60 days to find a new sponsor and CAS but failed to do so. The Appellant could not be awarded the 10 points claimed for maintenance as he did not produce a valid CAS.