Case No. UKUT-00184-(IAC)

1. At the core of the appeal before the Upper Tribunal is the issue of whether the First-tier Tribunal erred in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal br ought by the appellant against the respondent’s ‘decision’ of 6 November 2014. 2. The relevant factual background is as follows. On 1 April 2011 the appellant’s husband was granted leave to remain as a refugee until 12 February 2014. On the same date the appellant was granted leave to remain in the United K ingdom on a discretionary basis, also until 12 February 2014. The appellant’s husband applied for settlement on 29 January 2014 , using form ‘ SET ( Protection Route ) version 08/2013 ’ . W ithin that form the appellant’s husband na med the appellant as his dependa nt and answered ‘yes’ when asked ‘is settlement requested’ for her (the appellant) . 3. On 6 November 2014 the appellant’s husband’s application for settlement was refused but his leave was extended, it is said under paragraph 339Q of the Immigration R ules, for a further three years; such leave expiring on 5 November 2017. On the same date the respondent said this in relation to the appellant’s application: “ You have applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse of a person granted asylum or humanitarian protection but your aspect of the application has been rejected. You have applied for indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the dependant of [SJ] , however, as you have not been granted asylum or humanitarian protection either in your own right or in line with [SJ] nor have you been granted a family reunion visa, your aspect of the application has been rejected as there are no provisions under the settlement protection route to be granted leave. Your last period of leave was granted on a discretionary basis. If you wish to remain in the United Kingdom you should make the appropriate application and pay the correct fee. For further advice on which application is relevant to you, you should visit the Home Office website … I should remind you that as the application was made in time you have 28 days to make a valid application, if you fail to regularise your stay you may be liable for removal action.” 4.The appellant did not make any further application but instead sought to appeal this ‘decision’ to the First-tier Tribunal. The appeal was considered by First-tier Tribunal Judge Eames and in a decision headed “Notice: No Jurisdiction” the judge concluded that there was no valid appeal before him, giving the following reasons for so concluding: “37. T he letter of 6 November 2014 , for all that it purports to deny the appellant ( as I shall still call her for convenience ) a status she had applied for, nevertheless is not a notice of decision as defined. The letter does not contain any notice of appeal rights, for one thing, much less any detail of how or where to lodge an appeal etc. The relaxation of the Rules on content effected by Regulation 5(6) does not appear to apply in the present case since the appeal rights concerned (if there were any) could not only be exercised on the various grounds referred to in that paragraph. 38. But if I am wrong about the operation of Regulation 5(6) the effect of Judge Kopieczek’s judgment [in