Case No. UKUT-00233-(IAC)

140. The applicant was the appellant in the error of law proceedings. Directions were given by Judge Mandalia on 2 July 2020. Written submissions consequent on those directions were filed on 10 July 2020, directed to the merits of the appeal; nothing was said about the provisional view that the appeal should be determined without a hearing. 141. In her decision dismissing the appeal, the Upper Tribunal Judge referred to the absence of objection to a paper determination and continued as follows: “In circumstances where no objections were made to the issues being determined without a hearing and where the appellant has made written submissions and nothing further is needed from the respondent; it is in the interests of justice to proceed to determine the error of law issues on the papers in light of the written submission available and the full appeal file.” It was submitted to us that this represented inadequate consideration of whether to determine the appeal without a hearing. Counsel highlighted the existence of the Guidance Note and the comparative brevity of the Judge’s reasons for the rule 34 decision. 142. Considering the nature of the issues before her and the absence of any objection to the provisional view expressed by Judge Mandalia, we do not consider that anything more was required. The applicant had professional representation and detailed written submissions had been settled by counsel. We accept that the absence of submissions in response to the provisional view to determine the appeal without a hearing was not determinative; the judge was still required to consider whether it was fair to proceed to determine the error of law appeal without a hearing. However, her reference to the interests of justice at the end of paragraph 2 of her decision shows that she had the correct considerations in mind. We see nothing in error in her decision to proceed without a hearing. 143. Extensive submissions were made orally and in writing about the merits of the applicant’s article 8 ECHR case (rejected by the First-tier Tribunal) and the Upper Tribunal’s resolution of the substantive issues in the appeal. It was submitted there were various issues which had not received the scrutiny they deserved or were points that should have been clarified by the Secretary of State. We do not consider these points establish any procedural irregularity in the Tribunal’s consideration of the appeal. If it is to be submitted that the Upper Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its conclusions or that it failed to take material matters into account, that is an argument for an appeal. 144. For these reasons, we decline to set aside the Tribunal’s decision of 30 August 2020.