UI2023000128

             The appellant, a national of Nigeria, appeals, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Connal) dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 2 March 2022 refusing him indefinite leave to remain on human rights grounds.

             The effect of the facts set out in the previous paragraph is that the appellant's leave appears to have terminated on the date originally fixed for that event, 10 November 2017, the respondent's attempts to curtail it having failed. The period of time for which he had leave and so was lawfully resident for the purpose of para 276B would therefore be eight years and just under two months, not long enough for the benefits available under that paragraph.

             The appellant's case, however, is that he made an application for further leave during the currency of that leave and before it had expired, which was not decided before 20 September 2019 (and has indeed never been determined). If that is right, the appellant has the benefit of section 3C of the Immigration Act 2009, which would extend his existing leave for the period during which the application for variation of that leave was pending before the Secretary of State and until it was decided.

             The arguments that the judge made an error of law in that conclusion are wholly unspecific. They fail to identify any feature of the wording of the 2015 communications that could constitute or be read as an application for the variation of the appellant's existing leave. In our view, the judge was correct beyond any possible shadow of doubt. There was no application for variation of leave at that time.

         It follows that the judge was correct to conclude as she did that s 3C was not engaged and the appellant's leave expired on 10 November 2017. The appellant did not and does not meet the requirements of paragraph 276B.