![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> PA001012018 [2018] UKAITUR PA001012018 (23 November 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/PA001012018.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR PA001012018, [2018] UKAITUR PA1012018 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00101/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Manchester, Piccadilly |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
On 16 th November 2018 |
On 23 rd November 2018 |
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN
Between
MD JETU MIAH
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Not present or represented
For the Respondent: Mr Tan (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)
DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Appellant in relation to a decision of Judge P J Holmes in the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 12 th July 2018 in which he dismissed his protection appeal on all grounds.
2. Permission to appeal having been granted, my task is first to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal's Decision and Reasons contained an error of law and if so whether and to what extent the Decision and Reasons should be set aside.
3. The Appellant was represented before the First-tier Tribunal by Taj Solicitors. However they wrote to the Upper Tribunal on 15 th November explaining that due to a lack of funding they would be unable to represent the Appellant before me. The Appellant did not attend in person.
4. Permission to appeal was granted on only one ground, namely that it was arguable that the Judge ought to have adjourned the hearing to enable the Appellant to adduce medical evidence regarding his mental state.
5. The Decision and Reasons is silent as to any adjournment request having been made to the Judge on the day. I have checked the Record of Proceedings and it is clear that there was no adjournment application.
6. An application was made in writing by letter dated 30 th May. That was refused on 5 th June 2018. No further application was made either prior to or at the hearing.
7. It is not an error of law for a Judge not to adjourn a case when he has not been asked to do so.
Notice of Decision
8. The First-tier Tribunal having made no error of law in its Decision and Reasons, the appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.
9. There having been no application for an anonymity direction and the First-tier Tribunal not having made one, I see no justification for directing anonymity and do not do so.
Signed Date 16 th November 2018
Upper Tribunal Judge Martin