[2023] UKUT 00165 (IAC)

The appellant advanced four grounds of appeal.

Ground 1 argues that the judge erred by treating the 2016 decision as valid when it did not comply with the Notices Regulations. This is said to be inconsistent withOI (Notice of decision: time calculations) Nigeria [2006] UKAIT 42 and it is argued that the judge failed to engage with this decision.

Ground 2 argues that the judge failed to engage with the evidence before the First-tier Tribunal, or to give adequate reasons, in concluding that the appellant’s chance of success in an appeal against the 2016 decision was negligible.

Ground 3 argues that the judge erred by stating that the First-tier Tribunal decision dismissing the appeal against the 2016 decision for want of jurisdiction was “correct at the time given the authority of the Upper Tribunal in Sala”. The appellant submits that this is wrong because the fact that the decision was consistent with Sala did not make it correct given the subsequent confirmation in Khan that there was a right of appeal.

Ground 4 argues that the judge’s assessment of proportionality under article 8 was made on the wrong premise because of the reasons given in the grounds 1-3.