Rohima Bibi and Others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dacca [IAT]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1986 |
| Date | 13 February 1986 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
D L Neve (President) G W Farmer Esq (Vice-President), Dr L P De Souza MC JP
K A Quddus for the appellants
A Gammons for the respondent
Practice and Procedure where an appeal is remitted to an adjudicator for hearing de novo the proper approach to be adopted by the adjudicator rehearing the case whether he can take into account the record of proceedings at the earlier hearing whether he should have regard to the earlier determination.
The facts are set out in the determination.
Held:
1. When a case is remitted for hearing de novo the adjudicator rehearing the case is entitled to have regard to the record of the evidence given in previous proceedings.
2. He should then apply his mind afresh to the issues, the law and the evidence involved without regard to the previous adjudicator's determination.
Determination
The appellants are citizens of Bangladesh. On 22 December 1982 they applied to the entry clearance officer in Dacca for entry clearance to enable them to join a Mr Aftab Miah for settlement in this country as his wife and children. Their applications were refused on 12 September 1983. They appealed to an adjudicator against the refusals. Their appeal was heard by Mr W E M Dawson who dismissed the appeal of all the appellants on 29 August 1984. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal against Mr Dawson's determination and on 25 March 1985 the Tribunal remitted the appeal to be heard de novo by an adjudicator other than Mr Dawson. The Tribunal took this action as their determination records, because In the last paragraph of his determination the adjudicator stated I do not propose to review the documentary evidence. In our opinion, with respect, this clearly amounts to an error of law. The adjudicator was under a duty to consider the whole of the evidence, including the documents, and then to consider whether each appellant was related as claimed to the sponsor. The appeal consequently came up for hearing again before a different adjudicatorMr M Meredith-Hardy, who dismissed the appeal on 2 July last.
Against Mr Meredith-Hardy's determination the appellants now appeal to the Tribunal. The appellants have been represented throughout all these rather tortuous proceedings by counsel, Mr K A Quddus, who has represented them before us.
When the matter went before Mr Meredith-Hardy he invited Mr Quddus to adduce evidence again from Aftab Miah the sponsor, but Mr Quddus, as the record of proceedings shows, was content to rely upon the record of the evidence which he had given to Mr Dawson. Mr Meredith-Hardy heard argument as to the documentary evidence which was before him and concluded his determination in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration appeal tribunal ex parte Nalokweza
...for the applicant S Kovats for the respondent Cases referred to in the judgment: Rohima Bibi and ors v Entry Clearance Officer Dhaka [1986] Imm AR 103. Mohammad Karim v Visa Officer Islamabad [1986] Imm AR 224. Save Britain's Heritage v Number 1 Poultry LtdWLRUNK [1991] 1 WLR 153; [1991] 2 ......
-
R v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another
...hear this case de novo, and make my decision on the facts, evidence and submissions made before me, bearing in mind Patel (7697)Bibi [1986] Imm AR 103 and Qamar-Uz-Kaman (8868). In this connection, and in view of the appellant's decision not to give evidence I ascertained from Mr Acheampong......
-
Entry clearance officer, Bombay v Vali Ahmed Abhram Patel
...the appellant M Hussain for the respondent Cases referred to in the determination: Rohima Bibi and ors v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka [1986] Imm AR 103. Mohammad Karim v Visa Officer, Islamabad [1986] Imm AR 224. Appeal remittal by Tribunal for hearing de novo before another adjudicator t......
-
Mohammad Karim v Visa officer Islamabad
...appellant R Parsons for the respondent Case referred to in the determination: Rohima Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka [1986] Imm AR 103 Practice and Procedure where an appeal is remitted to an adjudicator for hearing de novo the proper approach to be adopted by the adjudicat......