Deb v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
DEB v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
 Imm AR 14
Hearing Date: 8 August 1989
8 August 1989
Appeal -- no appearance by appellant before adjudicator -- representative stated he had no instructions -- the need for the adjudicator to make enquiries and to record that he is satisfied that the requirements of the Procedure Rules and Notices Regulations have been observed. Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 r 34.The appellant did not appear before the adjudicator and had given no instructions to his representative. The adjudicator dismissed the appeal without any reference to the provisions of the Procedure Rules and without any indication of how and why he had been satisfied that he could proceed in the absence of the appellant. Held: When an adjudicator proceeds to hear an appeal under rule 34 of the Procedure Rules, he must indicate that he is satisfied that the provisions of the Procedure Rules and, where appropriate the Notices Regulations have been carried out and why he is so satisfied.
Counsel:EA Yaansah of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service for the appellant; A Gammons for the respondent. PANEL: DL Neve Esq (President) GW Farmer ESQ (Vice-President), Miss A Weitzman JP Judgment By-1: DL NEVE ESQ (P)
Judgment One:DL NEVE ESQ (P): (Reading the Determination of the tribunal). The appellant appeals against the decision of an adjudicator, dismissing his appeal to him against the refusal of the Secretary of State to vary his leave to be in this country consequent to his marriage to a woman settled here. We dismissed the appeal for reasons which we now set out more fully. When the appeal went before the adjudicator a Mr Choudhury (whose initials do not appear from the file) of the UKIAS appeared as his representative. Mr Choudhury stated that the appellant had not attended his office for interview, although it is apparent that a Hearing Notice had been served upon Mr Choudhury dated 28 October and he had arranged for the appellant to attend for interview on 28 November. The adjudicator's determination, after quoting the Notice of Refusal, consists of four lines: "The appellant was interviewed by an Immigration Office on 11 November 1987 when he ackowledged that he and his wife were now legally separated. The appellant does not meet the requirements of para 124 of HC 169, as amended. Accordingly I dismiss this appeal." At the appeal before us Mr Yaansah stated that he did not wish to press the appeal -- the appellant had marriage again and had made a fresh application to the Home Office. There is thus no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed, but leave to appeal was granted because the Tribunal wish to stress that when adjudicators are faced with a situation such as that which arose in this case (which is by no means uncommon) it is necessary to set out that they are satisfied that the requirements of the Procedure Rules (and Notices Regulations where appropriate) have been complied with, and why they are so satisfied. Only by doing so is it apparent that justice is being done.
Disclaimer: Crown Copyright
This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.