VA117982013

The appellant sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by Judge Mailer, a Judge of the First Tier on 3 June 2014. The grounds assert that the appellant�s bundle contained a clear explanation at page 15 about the origin of the funds deposited in her bank account. Crop receipts too had been produced as had many other documents relevant to her financial circumstances but the Judge had ignored these and had focussed on absence of documents which he had assumed should have been available to the appellant and which she should have produced (income tax returns).

For the appeal before me, Mr Kalam, the appellant�s representative had filed written skeleton argument and copies of Tribunal decisions in Ogunkola [2002] UKIAT 02238 and AA and Others (Sector Based Work: General principles) Bangladesh [2006] UKAIT 00026 .

Mr Kalam relied upon his written skeleton argument and showed by reference to the papers before Judge Nixon that material evidence on the appellant�s financial circumstances had been overlooked by the Judge and that the Judge had erred in approving the respondent�s decision which was based purely on suspicion and speculation.

For the respondent, Ms Pal did not challenge any of the submissions made by Mr Kalam. However she said that she would leave it to me to determine the validity of Mr Kalam�s submissions.

Appeal having been allowed, I have considered whether there should be a fee award. I have concluded that the decision of the respondent was of poor quality and in the circumstances I make an award of full fees.