Case No. UKUT-00410-(IAC)

4.The stimulus for the successive appeals to the FtT and the UT in these proceedings was a decision of the Secretary of State, dated 26 September 2013, refusing to revoke a deportation order made in respect of the Appellant, a national of Nigeria aged 38 years. This decision has generated the following series of judicial interventions:By its decision promulgated on 01 August 2014 the FtT dismissed the ensuing appeal under the Immigration Rules and allowed it under Article 8 ECHR.By a decision dated 15 August 2014 a Judge of the FtT refused the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal to the UT.The Secretary of State also applied to the FtT for permission to appeal to the UT and, by oversight, this application was not determined.By the decision of a Judge of the UT dated 04 December 2014, which omitted to take cognisance of the oversight noted immediately above, both parties were granted permission to appeal to the UT. As regards the Appellant, the case made in the grounds of appeal was that the UT should have allowed his appeal under the Immigration Rules and Article 3 ECHR.The last-mentioned decision was set aside in part for irregularity by a further decision of a Judge of the UT dated 19 November 2015.By a separate decision of the same date the same Judge granted permission to the Secretary of State to appeal to the UT, based on arguable error of law in the appeal having been allowed under Article 8 ECHR.5. The upshot of this entangled procedural history was a listing of the combined appeals before a Judge of the UT on 12 January 2016. This gave rise to the following determination dated 05 February 2016:“The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law insofar as the assessment of exceptional circumstances in paragraph 398 of the Immigration Rules is concerned. I set aside the decision insofar as it relates to that finding. The First-tier Tribunal did not err in law in its findings with regard to Article 3 and I do not set aside that decision”.The UT Judge formulated certain consequential case management directions relating to the provision of evidence and, further, provisionally relisting the appeal for hearing on 15 March 2016 for the purpose of remaking the decision of the FtT.6. The last-mentioned judicial act of the UT was the impetus for an application by the Appellant, by a notice dated 25 February 2016, in the following terms:“The Appellant seeks permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the UT –(i) On Article 8 ECHR and by way of the UT setting aside the decision of the FtT which had allowed the Appellant’s appeal previously.(ii) On Article 3 ECHR, by way of the UT concluding that there were no material errors of law in the determination of the FtT on this ground such that the FtT’s decision should not be set aside and reconsidered”.In short, the Appellant contends that the twofold conclusion of the UT Judge (a) finding an error of law in the decision of the FtT (to the Appellant’s detriment) and (b) setting aside such decision in consequence is vitiated by error of law. For the purposes of this decision no exploration of the asserted errors of law is necessary.