IA168992014

At the hearing there was no appearance by or on behalf of the appellant. I observed that notice of the hearing had been sent to both the appellant and representatives, Kumari-Banga Solicitors, on 3 rd November 2014 and had not been returned in the post. Having regard to the provisions of paragraph 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the appellant.

On 9 th October 2014 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Chohan gave permission to the respondent to appeal against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal S J Pacey in which he allowed the appeal on immigration and human rights grounds against the decision of the respondent to refuse leave to remain in accordance with the provisions of Appendix FM and paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules.

At the hearing before me Ms Johnstone contended that the appellant�s claimed loss of his passport through alleged negligence by his agent, Brighter Vision Company, did not amount to compelling circumstances which could lead to a grant of leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules even if only to extend his leave until he could obtain a further travel document.

There were no submissions before me for the appellant although I had regard to the original grounds of appeal, the circumstances of the appellant�s application and the findings of the First-tier Judge.

The decision does not show that the judge gave consideration to whether or not the appellant�s circumstances in requiring an extension to his visa to obtain a passport or travel document actually gave rise to a breach of his Article 8 rights. Although the judge reaches a conclusion in paragraph 13 of the decision that the respondent�s refusal was disproportionate in Article 8 terms, he has not explained how the circumstances gave rise to a breach of private life or family life.