Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2024-05-28, UI-2024-000024

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Appeal NumberUI-2024-000024
Hearing Date23 April 2024
Date28 May 2024
Published date12 June 2024
CourtUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)


IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-000024
First-tier Tribunal No: EU/52004/2023



THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 28 May 2024

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PICKUP

Between

Artur Plotr Cieslinksi
(NO ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms N Wilkins of Counsel, Direct Access
For the Respondent: Ms C Newton, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 23 April 2024


DECISION AND REASONS
1. To avoid confusion, the parties are referred to herein as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
2. By the decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Owens issued on 4.3.24, the respondent has been granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Cole) promulgated 1.11.23 allowing the appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision of 7.2.23 to refuse his human rights submissions against the Notice of Decision to Deport issued 3.11.22.
3. The relevant background is that the appellant is a national of Poland who first came to the UK in 2009 and was subsequently granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under the EUSS provisions on 8.2.21. However, as the result of an attack on his former partner’s new partner, the appellant was convicted on 20.4.22 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and dangerous driving and on 18.10.22 sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. The respondent issued a Notice of Decision to Deport on 3.11.22. The appellant did not respond within the time limit provided but his subsequent representations were considered as a human rights claim. In short, the appellant claimed a relationship with his daughter born to his former partner.
4. The respondent was not represented at the First-tier Tribunal appeal hearing on 1.11.23 but the judge decided not to adjourn and ultimately concluded that it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT