DECISION
1.The decision on behalf of the Secretary of State giving rise to this appeal was made on 26 January 2015. By this decision the Secretary of State refused the application of the Appellant Thajudheen Elayi, a citizen of India now aged 28 years, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.2.The Secretary of State’s decision was made under the discrete regime of the Immigration Rules constituted by Appendix FM Section S-LTR, specifically Rule S-LTR.2.2. The decision letter recites evidence available to the Secretary of State that the Appellant had previously undergone an English language proficiency test. The letter continues stating that the organisation ETS had conducted a review of, inter alia, the Appellant’s test. ETS, it is said, confirmed that the Appellant’s test certificate had been “obtained through deception.”3.The date of the test is stated to be 19 October 2011. This is a reference to the first of the two dates upon which the Appellant evidently underwent the testing. The letter states that as a result of the information provided by ETS the Appellant’s scores from that test had been “cancelled.” Although the decision letter does not spell this out with absolute clarity it is tolerably clear, and we so hold, that the decision was made under paragraph 2.2(a) rather than (b) of paragraph S-LTR of Appendix FM of the Rules.4.Thus, in summary, the basis of the decision was that the Appellant, in making his application for leave to remain, had relied on false information, representations or documents, namely his TOEIC proficiency certificates. We deduce from the evidence that the application in question was that dated 21 December 2011 when the Appellant submitted an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student.5.We have concluded that this appeal succeeds on the following grounds. The first relates to the conduct of the hearing by the Judge at first instance. This conduct is described in the Appellant’s further witness statement dated 08 September 2015 and specifically paragraph 2 thereof. In this document the Appellant describes conduct which may, uncontroversially, be described as unconventional and unorthodox. There is no dispute about what is recounted in this statement and indeed it is corroborated by the Appellant’s spouse in her separate and further witness statement.6.In summary, the Judge (a) engaged in a private conversation with the Appellant’s representative (b) in the absence of the other party’s representative (c) in the precincts of the court room (d) partly out of sight and earshot of the Appellant and his spouse (e) in a setting other than that of bench/bar (f) before the Appellant’s hearing began (g) relating to the Appellant’s case and, finally, (h) the contents whereof, other than a question about the Appellant’s religious adherence, itself an improper enquiry made in this fashion, were not divulged to the Appellant.7.The principles to be applied to these undisputed facts are well established. They are set out in inter alia the decision of this Tribunal in