Case No. UKUT-00133-(IAC)
Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber

Case No. UKUT-00133-(IAC)

Fecha: 12-Ene-2022

Whether the decision was procedurally fair

108. The applicant’s judicial review grounds contend, in insufficiently particularised terms, that the respondent’s decisions were procedurally unfair because, based on Balajigari, the applicant would not be permitted to adduce further evidence to show he had not been dishonest, and because the respondent was aware that the applicant had a sister in the UK prior to his 2nd interview “…but still attempted to undermine the Applicant’s credibility.” Mr Turner did not develop this aspect of the judicial review challenge in either his skeleton argument or his oral submissions. 109. To the extent that the challenge may suggest that further evidence could not be provided at the Administrative Review stage following a refusal under paragraph 320(7A), AR2.11(a)(i) of ‘Appendix AR Administrative Review’, indicates that ‘case working error’ includes a situation where the original decision maker’s decision to refuse an application on the basis of paragraph 320(7A) was incorrect, and, under paragraphs AR2.4(a) and AR2.11(a), it is open to the applicant to adduce further evidence in support of the Administrative Review application.110. Following the revocation of his entry clearance the applicant was invited to a 2nd interview. The respondent’s concerns regarding the applicant’s omission in respect of his sister were put to him during the 2nd interview, and he was given an adequate opportunity to respond to those concerns. We do not accept Mr Turner’s contention that the applicant did not know why his entry clearance was revoked when he underwent his 2nd interview. At questions 7 and 8 the applicant was told that he had been denied boarding at the airport because of concerns relating to his credibility, and at questions 9 to 15 he was expressly told that the credibility concern arose from his answers relating to whether he had any family in the UK.111. We are not persuaded that there was any procedural unfairness in relation to the 2nd interview, and we find it was conducted in compliance with guidance given in