IA125982013

In this matter I will refer to the parties in the order and by the description set out before the First-tier Tribunal.

The Respondent sought leave to appeal which was granted. The matter then came before me in the Upper Tribunal on 28 November 2013. In a decision notice dated 6 December 2013, and for the reasons set out therein, I found an error of law in respect of the Judge�s decision under Article 8 and that part of the decision was accordingly set aside.

In paragraph 12 of my decision I indicated that before the decision could be remade it was necessary for evidence to be taken so that the outstanding aspect of the appeal could be concluded. I specifically indicated that the conclusions of the judge with regard to the appeal under the Rules had not been challenged and were preserved. As an interpreter was not available it was necessary for me to adjourn that hearing for a �resumed evidential hearing�. Hence the matter was relisted before me on 18 February 2014.

At the time the hearing commenced Mr Richards was present but neither the appellant nor his representatives appeared. A Tribunal-financed interpreter was available. I caused enquiries to be made of the representatives and after some delay a faxed letter was received indicating that the appellant was unable to attend the hearing due to �some personal issues�. The letter contained a request for the outstanding issues to be decided on �available evidences� (sic). I therefore considered it appropriate to proceed.

It is indeed unfortunate that the appellant has not sought to prosecute the outstanding aspect of his appeal. The decision of Judge Britton was preserved along with his findings in respect of the appellant�s appeal against the refusal under the Rules. The only issue before me was in respect of the appellant�s Article 8 claim.