IA201092013

This appeal comes before me following the grant of permission by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cruthers in respect of the determination of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sangha who dismissed the appeal by way of a determination dated 23 December 2013.

The appellant lodged an appeal but did not seek an oral hearing. The grounds argue that he now regrets this and that in view of the compassionate nature of the case the judge should have remitted it to the respondent for further evidence to be adduced or adjourned it for an oral hearing. It is also argued that adequate consideration had not been given to the best interests of the child with whom the appellant has a strong bond.

The grounds were expanded at the hearing when I heard submissions from the parties. The appellant was in attendance. For the appellant, Mr Warburton acknowledged that there was sparse documentary evidence before the judge but he submitted that given the plethora of case law about the best interests of children, the judge should have done something to obtain further evidence. He submitted that the child had lost her mother and would lose out if the appeal is not heard.

Ms Pettersen submitted that it was not an error for the judge to fail to take account of documentary evidence that had not been placed before her. The appellant had the option of an oral hearing but did not choose it. He had the option of adducing documentary evidence but did not do so. There was no error of law in the determination and it should not be set aside.

I have taken into account the submissions made and the determination of the First-tier Tribunal.