THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: IMS/2006/1/RTR
BETWEEN:
AMER ALNASSER
Appellant
and
THE OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES COMMISSIONER
Respondent
DECISION AND REASONS (RULE 24)
Before: Mr George Marriott – Chairman
Mr Martin Hall
Dr Alan Montgomery
Sitting at: Procession House, 55 Ludgate Hill, London, EC4M 7JW
Hearing: 11th and 12th May 2006
BACKGROUND
1. The Appellant applied for registration by his letter dated the 5th December 2005. The Respondent by letter dated the 9th December 2005 requested further information before the Respondent could assess the suitability of the Appellant for registration.
2. The Respondent received no reply and therefore on the 8th February 2006 wrote to the Appellant refusing his application for registration.
3. The Respondent had highlighted several factors which remained outstanding embracing Rule 14, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33A and Code 16H and 55.
4. The address the Appellant gave was the same one to which the Respondent had written on 9th December 2005 and the same one which the Appellant had used in his application for registration. Dissatisfied by that decision, the Appellant appealed. This was received by the Tribunal on the 23rd February 2006.
5. Accordingly and quite properly, the Tribunal continued to respond to that address, and by recorded delivery. The Tribunal sent to the Appellant directions given in the case, the notice of hearing, and the Respondent’s bundle. All correspondence sent by the Tribunal to the Appellant was eventually returned by the Post Office as not called for.
THE HEARING
6. The Appellant did not appear. The Respondent was represented by Meerah Naminathan.
7. We were referred to a witness statement from Ms Gilchrist the caseworker on behalf of the Respondent dated the 7th April 2006. The statement was signed and certified by a Statement of Truth. Ms Gilchrist was present at the Tribunal.
8. We dismissed the appeal.
REASONS
When the Appellant applied for registration, the Respondent asked for further information to assess the Appellant’s suitability. This information was not supplied. The Respondent had a statutory duty to satisfy herself that the Appellant was suitable for registration in accordance with Section 84(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
We were satisfied that the Appellant had not supplied that information, and further that until it was supplied, the Respondent would not be in a position to determine the Appellant’s application for registration.
We read with care the witness statement referred to above which in the absence of the Appellant was not challenged.
The burden of proof was on the Appellant to show us on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was wrong in refusing the registration. He failed to do so.
Accordingly we are totally satisfied that the Respondent was correct in refusing registration in the absence of the Appellant supplying the appropriate information.
Signed this 15th day of May 2006
………………………………………………………………
George Marriott
Chairman
