Case No. UKUT-00184-(IAC)

(right of appeal – alternative remedy) IJR [2015] UKUT 00353 (IAC), a decision of Upper Tribunal Judge O’Connor).13.On our reading, the decision in Singh (No immigration decision – jurisdiction) [2013] UKUT 00440 (IAC), relied upon by Judge Eames, provides no support for a contrary conclusion. That decision is properly distinguishable on the basis that there was no relevant immigration decision before the Tribunal, in contrast to the instant case in which we have found there was an immigration decision. If, however, we are not correct in so distinguishing the decision in Singh then we decline to follow it, preferring instead the line of established authority set out in paragraph 12 above, none of which cases were referred to by the Tribunal in Singh. 14.We have no hesitation in concluding that an applicant is entitled to waive the Secretary of State’s compliance with the Notice Regulations, and that the instant appellant did so. 15.For these reasons the First-tier Tribunal was incorrect in its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal brought by the appellant and, accordingly, we set aside its decision to this effect. 16.The next issue for consideration is whether the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for it to determine the appeal brought before it, or whether the Upper Tribunal should remain seized of the appeal. After discussion between the parties we have been greatly assisted in our consideration of this issue by Mr Walker identifying that the Secretary of State now accepts that the appellant is entitled to leave in line with that given to her husband. 17.On the basis of this concession we conclude that the appeal should be retained in the Upper Tribunal. We re-make the decision on appeal for ourselves, allowing it with a direction that the Secretary of State, grant the applicant leave until 5 November 2017.