by Mark Henderson & Alison Pickup
Determination without a hearing
Failure to comply with directions/rules
Hearing the appeal in the absence of a party
Withdrawal of appeals
Appeals deemed to be abandoned or finally determined
7.1 Rule 25(1) requires the Tribunal to hold a hearing in every case, before making a decision which disposes of proceedings, subject to the exceptions set out in that rule.
7.3 Rule 25 details the circumstances in which the Tribunal can dispense with a hearing:
–(1) The Tribunal must hold a hearing before making a decision which disposes of proceedings except were--
(a) each party has consent to, or has not objected to, the matter being decided without a hearing;
(b) the appellant has not consented to the appeal being determined without a hearing but the Lord Chancellor has refused to issue a certificate of fee satsfaction for the fee payable for the hearing;
(c) the appellant is outside the United Kingdom and does not have a representative who has an address for service in the United Kingdom;
(d) it is impracticable to give the appellant notice of the hearing;
(e) a party has failed to comply with a provision of these Rules, a practice direction or a direction and the Tribunal is satisfied that in all the circumstances, including the extent of the failure and any reasons for it, it is appropriate to determine the appeal without a hearing;
(f) the appeal is one to which rule 16(2) or 18(2) applies; or
(g) subject to paragraph (2), the Tribunal considers that it can justly determine the matter without a hearing.
(3) Where paragraph (1)(g) applies, the Tribunal must not make the decision without a hearing without first giving the parties notice of its intention to do so, and an opportunity to make written representations as to whether there should be a hearing.
(4) This rule does not apply to decisions under part 4 or part 5.
7.5 With respect to rule 25(1)(g), there ought to be no circumstances other than those falling within rule 25(1)(e) where it would be just to dispense with a hearing without the appellant's consent (see Gioshev v SSHD (15801) and R v IAT, ex parte S  Imm AR 252 (para 7.13)).
7.6 Rule 25(1)(e) empowers the Tribunal to determine the appeal without a hearing but only where 'a party has failed to comply with a provision of these Rules, a practice direction or a direction ' and 'the Tribunal is satisfied that in all the circumstances, including the extent of the failure and any reasons for it, it is appropriate to determine the appeal without a hearing'
"where both the appellant and the representative are present at the hearing an adjudicator should exercise extreme caution before deciding to determine an appeal without a hearing because of failure to comply with directions.
In the present case the failure did not go to any essential part of the case and the course taken by the adjudicator is unsustainable. This is not a case in which there is a huge amount of documentary evidence and such documentary evidence as there was, was itself mainly paginated. Further the appellant and his representative being present the omission of a declaration as to whether the appellant was adopting the interview as his evidence and the lack of proof of evidence cannot possibly provide grounds for sending the appellant away without allowing him to present his case. In our view the adjudicator's action in this case was a misuse of the power conferred by the rules. Such misuse is likely to bring the power to give directions into contempt."
7.8 The point was reiterated in MD (good reasons to consider) Pakistan  UKIAT 00197. The Adjudicator had determined the appeal without a hearing because the appellant had failed to comply with directions by producing a witness statement only on the morning of the hearing.
11. Although it may be easy for an adjudicator, faced with an Appellant who has failed to comply with directions and who has not disclosed his case, to forget how important his decision may be it is incumbent upon him to remember his duty... In a case considering the proper application of paragraph 45(2) of the Immigration Asylum and Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2003, Muhammad (01/TH/01223) Mr J Barnes, Vice President, said:-
"...... Adjudicators should be conscious that part of their over-riding duty is to ensure a just disposal. Partly this is because a just disposal will be a final disposal; partly because there is a duty on immigration judiciary to give the most anxious consideration to applications which involve a claim that their makers fear persecution for a Convention reason if returned to [their] own country, or, since the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998, that [they] will suffer inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3."
12. The Procedure Rules provide for the oral hearing of an appeal. The Appellant wanted to give evidence and produced a witness statement, albeit late. Adjudicators have a duty to apply the most anxious scrutiny and the high standards of fairness to the Appellant's case.
7.9 The Tribunal emphasised that before an appeal could be determined without a hearing on this basis, it must decide whether there were "good reasons" for considering evidence not filed in accordance with directions pursuant to rule 51(4) of the 2005 Procedure Rules (see the discussion from para 27.8).
"The Adjudicator had before him an appeal that was listed for hearing. He had a represented Appellant and a representative from the Respondent who, it seems, was ready to go ahead with the hearing. The Procedure Rules show what the Adjudicator should have done when faced with an application to consider evidence that had not been produced in accordance with directions. The adjudicator was quite wrong to consider determining the appeal without a hearing without first satisfying himself that there were no good reason not to admit the statements or that the hearing could not justly go ahead and should not be adjourned.
...[The rule] empowers the [Tribunal] to determine an appeal without a hearing but it will rarely be "appropriate" to do that where at least one of the parties wants a hearing and there is no unfairness to the other in letting a hearing go ahead."
7.13 The Tribunal should therefore only decide to dispense with a hearing if it is satisfied by reference to the material before it and the nature of the issues that the appeal can be justly determined on the papers. That 'draconian step' will seldom be justified where credibility is in issue and the appellant is present and prepared to give evidence. In R v IAT, ex parte S  Imm AR 252, Sullivan J held that:
"Where the appellant's credibility is in issue and he is present and wishes to give evidence, it would only be in rare cases that a special adjudicator could properly be satisfied that the appeal could be disposed of justly without a hearing."
7.14 Rule 28 sets out circumstances in which the Tribunal may proceed with a hearing in the absence of a party:
28. If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal –
(a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and
(b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.
7.15 In the past the Procedure Rules obliged the Tribunal to proceed with a hearing if there was no satisfactory explanation for the absence of a party or his representative. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in FP (Iran) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 13 that this rule was unlawful, the provision was amended so that the Tribunal was merely empowered to determine the appeal without a hearing in the absence of a good explanation for non-attendance. The new rule introduced by the 2014 Rules gives the Tribunal a much broader discretion to decide whether it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of a party, provided always that it is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing, or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify him of the hearing. If there is no evidence that the appellant has deliberately failed to attend, the Tribunal will usually agree to adjourn the appeal for a short period to enable any explanation to be submitted (para 8.32). It is therefore very important that the representative attend: even if an adjournment is refused in those circumstances, the representative will be entitled to make submissions.
7.16 In Feghali (16602), the Tribunal considered the position where a judge has concluded a hearing in the absence of the appellant but then agreed to consider documentation submitted by the appellant after the hearing. The Tribunal held that it would be open to a judge hearing an appeal in the absence of a party to indicate that he would accept submission of material within a certain period after the hearing. But if he did not do so, and then entertained post-hearing submissions, he was effectively reopening the hearing. He therefore had to reconsider whether to hear from the appellant.
7.17 In light of the severe consequences for the appellant of proceeding in her absence, the Tribunal requires the rule to be complied with strictly. In Khmelkevich v SSHD (00/TH/01718), it stated that
"[The adjudicator] does not say whether or not he is satisfied that due notice of the time and place of the hearing has been given. We have little doubt that it was but, where an asylum seeker is to be deprived of his right to give oral evidence and to have an appeal determined in his absence, it seems to us that it is at least incumbent on the Special Adjudicator to make it clear that the formalities of the rules have been complied with. Secondly, the mandatory sub-rule... applies only if there is no satisfactory explanation for the absence of the party concerned. In this case there manifestly was such an explanation before the Special Adjudicator. There is no suggestion that what was contained in the medical certificate supplied was not accepted by him. Whilst it has in the past been properly considered that a certificate that an appellant is not fit to attend work is not appropriate to explain absence from a hearing, the doctor specifically stated the Appellant was not fit to attend an interview. That is to put the ability to attend anywhere at a very low level and, simply as a matter of common-sense, must extend to a court appearance at which evidence subject to cross-examination is to be given. Whilst we accept that adjudicators must be vigilant in ensuring that explanations for absence are reasonable, this is to impose far too high a duty on the Appellant."
7.19 In particular, the rule does not entitle a judge to proceed in the absence of the appellant whenever it is established that she is too ill to attend the hearing. On the contrary, that will normally be good grounds for an adjournment. However, there will come a stage where the prospects of her being well enough to attend within a reasonable period are sufficiently remote to justify proceeding under this provision. In R v SSHD, ex parte Tahir Iqbal (CO/2469/97), Collins J said that:
"[A] balance may, in certain circumstances, have to be drawn between the need for the appellant to be heard in order to be able to put forward his appeal in a proper manner and the need for an appeal to be disposed of in a reasonable time. One can imagine examples where, if he was unfit for a period of years, it would be unreasonable to expect the matter to be deferred. But, as I see it, in considering an adjournment, an Adjudicator must always have in mind fairness to both parties but, in particular in asylum cases such as this, the need for fairness to the applicant to enable him to put forward a meaningful appeal."
7.21 See also applying for an adjournment on the ground that the appellant is unable to attend (paras 8.27–8.33).
7.22 Rule 17 provides that:
17.—(1) A party may give notice of the withdrawal of their appeal—
(a) by providing to the Tribunal a written notice of withdrawal of the appeal; or
(b) orally at a hearing, and in either case must specify the reasons for that withdrawal.
(2) The Tribunal must (save for good reason) treat an appeal as withdrawn if the respondent notifies the Tribunal and each other party that the decision (or, where the appeal relates to more than one decision, all of the decisions) to which the appeal relates has been withdrawn and specifies the reasons for the withdrawal of the decision.
(3) The Tribunal must notify each party in writing that a withdrawal has taken effect under this rule and that the proceedings are no longer regarded by the Tribunal as pending.
7.22A The words "save for good reason", and the requirement to give reasons for the withdrawal, were inserted into rule 17(2) by the 2014 Rules. The Rule previously allowed one party to the appeal (the Home Office) to unilaterally terminate the appeal without conceding the case by agreeing to grant the other party leave to enter/ remain. In its 2013 consultation on proposed amendments to the First-tier Tribunal rules, the Tribunal Procedure Committee proposed amending rule 17(2) so as to give the Tribunal a power to treat the appeal as withdrawn rather than a duty to do so. This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents, but the Home Office opposed the proposal. The Committee stated when it published the 2014 Rules that it had been assured that it was Home Office policy only to withdraw a decision under appeal when it intended to grant leave to enter or remain. The Committee concluded that "in light of the Home Office's clear statement of policy" to that effect , the likelihood of tactically motivated withdrawals was reduced, this being one of the main concerns raised by other respondents to the consultation paper (see paras 63-73 of the Committee's published Reply to the consultation, available on the gov.uk website). It considered that the new requirement imposed on the Home Office to "specif[y] the reasons for the withdrawal of the decision" would "encourage compliance with the Home Office policy"
That clear statement of policy did not reflect the experience of many practitioners. The Home Office has been known to withdraw decisions in the face of compelling evidence only to make the same, or virtually the same, decision months or even years later. In fact, the Modernised Guidance on Appeals published on the same date that the 2014 Procedure Rules came into force resiled from the statement upon which the Committee relied in formulating. It indicates that Presenting Officers should withdraw a decision in order to consider a 'new matter' raised in the appeal if the Tribunal does not agree to an adjournment in order for that 'new matter' to be considered (para 8.2). In subsequent correspondence with the Law Society in November 2014, the Home Office stated that the Committee's understanding of the Home Office's policy was not correct and referred to internal guidance in place since January 2014 which states that:
Withdrawing a decision
5. A decision should be withdrawn if it is legally unsustainable ... or if new evidence has been submitted. If a Presenting Officer withdraws a decision for these reasons, they are not accepting that the appellant's appeal should be allowed, but that the decision under appeal is unsustainable and needs to be re-taken. A decision should also be withdrawn, or conceded ... if it is incorrect and, for example, the appellant is entitled to be granted leave.
6. A decision should not be withdrawn simply because better or stronger reasons for refusal could be given .. If a PO concludes that there are additional grounds for refusal, or stronger reasons, these should be discussed with an ALD SCW and - where it is agreed that it is appropriate to raise additional matters - the PO should do so in writing to the Representative/ Appellant and the Tribunal or, if there is not sufficient time to do so, raise those matters at the hearing.
7. The most common circumstance in which a decision may need to be withdrawn is if it contains a fundamental flaw (for example the decision has not engaged with the basis for the application or the claim) or material mistake (such as the appellant's nationality in an asylum claim or a student application under Tier 4 of the PBS that was considered as a Tier 5 application). This means that the decision has to be remade. The Tribunal cannot force a PO to withdraw a decision. If the Tribunal thinks the decision is unlawful and the PO does not withdraw it the Tribunal can allow the appeal.
8. POs should not withdraw a decision simply because they do not agree with it.
9. Where there is admissible new evidence that is likely to be crucial to an appeal the Presenting Officer should normally ask the Tribunal for an adjournment for a chance for the new evidence to be considered and verified rather than withdrawing the decision.
10. Where a decision is withdrawn CID admin events must be updated to reflect the main reason for the withdrawal.
In R (Chichvarkin) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 91, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Divisional Court which had observed that:
...the power to withdraw may be exercised if the SSHD genuinely wishes to reconsider in the light of facts and matters advanced by the Appellant or indeed of other relevant matters coming to her attention, including a possible change of policy in the relevant area. The exercise of the power to withdraw is different from seeking an adjournment of proceedings: the latter course is appropriate where the SSHD wishes to maintain the challenged decision and is seeking further material to support her case.
In R (Glushkov) v SSHD and AIT  EWHC 2290 (Admin), Collins J had said (in guidance approved in Chichvarkin) that:
It is clear beyond doubt, in my view, that the Secretary of State must not use the withdrawal power as a tactical exercise to avoid having to apply for an adjournment. She must only use it if she is genuinely of the view that she might change her mind on reconsidering the material that is put before her. It would be a wrongful exercise, and unfair to an appellant, if she were simply to use this power because she wanted more time to deal with the material that was put forward but had no intention of changing her mind as a result of it.
7.22B In SM (withdrawal of appealed decision: effect) (Pakistan)  UKUT 00064 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal was concerned with whether it should exercise its power under rule 17(2) of its Procedure Rules to allow the Home Office to "withdraw its case" when it had withdrawn the underlying immigration decision. In the course of doing so it considered the effect of rule 17(2) of the 2005 Procedure Rules which then applied to the First-tier Tribunal. It expressed the opinion that if the respondent withdrew an immigration decision during the course of an appeal in the Upper Tribunal, and the Upper Tribunal then remitted the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal could direct the First-tier Tribunal to decide the appeal notwithstanding rule 17(2) of the First-tier Rules. It expressed concern about the compatibility of the rule with the legislation, a concern which, it noted, had not been put to the Court of Appeal in Chichvarkin  EWCA Civ 91:
In any event, leaving aside the remittal scenario, it is by no means apparent that rule 17(2) of the 2005 Rules has the result of compelling the First-tier Tribunal, in all circumstances and without exception, to treat the appeal as withdrawn. We refer again to section 104(4A) and (4B) of the 2002 Act. It is unusual in this jurisdiction for a new decision of the respondent to be made immediately upon the withdrawal of the decision against which the appeal is brought. In a case where an appellant has brought his or her appeal "on the ground relating to the Refugee Convention specified in section 84(1)(g) " or "on the grounds specified in section 84(1)(b) ", the consequence of treating the appeal as withdrawn – thereby ending it, pursuant to section 104(1)(b) – before it is known whether the appellant is to be granted leave to enter or remain, would effectively negate Parliament's intention in enacting section 104(4A) to (4C) . In short, a strict adherence to rule 17(2) of the 2005 Rules may be legally problematic.
7.22D The Upper Tribunal went on to give guidance as to the factors relevant to the exercise of its discretion whether to allow an appeal to continue where the underlying immigration decision is withdrawn and the Home Office seeks to withdraw its case. It indicated that it would normally make a 'formal disposal' of the appeal without substantive consideration of the issues, which could either be a decision to dismiss the appeal or (if appropriate, for example because the Home Office had accept that its original decision was in error) to allow the appeal and make a fee award in the appellant's favour. The factors which it said would be relevant in deciding whether to give substantive consideration to the appeal are likely to be relevant when the First-tier Tribunal is considering whether to treat an appeal as withdrawn under rule 17(2) and are:
(i) "Secretary of State should normally be primary decision-maker" It noted that while the Court of Appeal had treated this as an important factor in Chichvarkin, that was a case in which an asylum claim was made for the first time during an appeal against an immigration decision. It said that "By contrast, where asylum has been raised and fully considered (and rejected) by the respondent, prior to the appeal being instituted, the principle of primary decision-making lying with the respondent does not arise or, insofar as the case for the appellant is subsequently put on a different basis, may not arise to the same extent. In such circumstances, the termination of the current appellate proceedings by formal disposal may well not be appropriate, having regard to the overriding objective and section 104(4B)";
(ii) "whether there are wider public interest reasons, potentially involving persons other than the appellant and his immediate family etc, why it may be desirable to determine the appeal substantively, notwithstanding withdrawal of the appealed decision". This factor is likely to be of less significance in the First-tier Tribunal whose decisions do not have precedent value but the Tribunal noted that an appeal would not be academic to the appellant and his family where the decision had merely been withdrawn and there had been no decision to grant the leave that was sort through the appeal.
(iii) "the timing of, and reasons for, the respondent's withdrawal of her decision may be such as to necessitate the Upper Tribunal to embark on a substantive analysis, leading to a fully-reasoned, authoritative decision. In particular, where the reasons for withdrawal of the decision, as articulated by the respondent, indicate that the only legally correct result would be a decision in favour of the appellant (for example, to grant leave to remain on the basis that she meets the relevant requirements of the Immigration Rules), then, in the context of the overriding objective, it may well be appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to bring matters to an end, by a substantive decision in the appellant's favour."
(iv) "whether bad faith ... had been made out"
(v) the views of the parties.
7.22E Where it is suspected that the decision is being withdrawn as an alternative to seeking an adjournment to consider new evidence, i.e. in on a basis directly contrary to the understanding upon which the Tribunal Procedure Committee relied, it may well be useful to refer the Tribunal to the Committee's Response to the consultation explaining the thinking behind the final version of the rule. That may support a submission that there is good reason under the rule not to treat the appeal as withdrawn. The Committee had also considered introducing a power to reinstate the appeal if leave was not granted and relied on its understanding of Home Office policy in concluding that this also was not necessary for the time being. The alternative, where the Home Office insists that there will be a genuine reconsideration of its decision, and there is no pressing reason to proceed with the hearing is to grant an adjournment sufficient to enable a genuine reconsideration to take place.
7.22F Presidential Guidance Note No. 1 of 2014 lays down a procedure for giving the appellant an opportunity to object to the appeal being treated as withdrawn where the Respondent withdraws the decision appealed against. It states that:
17. Where the respondent withdraws the decision no later than 21 days prior to the hearing (28 days for out of country appeals) a notice will be sent to the appellant asking if there is good reason why the appeal should not be treated as withdrawn. If a response is received, or the time for replying expires without a response, then a judge will be asked to decide if the appeal should be treated as withdrawn. If there is insufficient time to consult the appellant prior to the hearing then the question of whether the appeal will be treated as withdrawn will be considered at the hearing.
18. If a judge decides that the appeal is withdrawn, the judge will mark the appeal file and Record of Proceedings accordingly and take no further action as there will be no appeal pending. No decision or statement of reasons will be produced.
19. In all cases where the appeal is withdrawn, the Tribunal will issue the notice required by rule 17(3).
20. If a judge decides that the appeal is not withdrawn, then the hearing will proceed. The judge will advise the parties of the decision and will record it in the Record of Proceedings with a view that the decision and reasons will be included in any statement of reasons subsequently produced.
Note that the Guidance Note indicates that the fact that the appellant wishes to seek a fee award will not normally be regarded as a good reason for refusing to treat the appeal as withdrawn (para 16).
7.23 In relation to withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant, the Guidance Note states that (para 15):
Where an appellant seeks to withdraw an appeal in terms of rule 17, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant is doing so freely and understands the consequences of the withdrawal, the Tribunal will be satisfied that the appeal is withdrawn. Where an appellant is legally represented and the request to withdraw is made by the representative, the Tribunal will assume that the representative has explained the consequences of the action to the appellant and that this is the intention of the appellant.
AP (Withdrawals-nullity assessment) Pakistan  UKAIT 00022 gives guidance on disputed withdrawals. The headnote explains that Rule 17 provides the basis for withdrawal of appeals. Where a party has withdrawn an appeal there is then nothing before the Tribunal and the matter is at an end. The validity or effectiveness of the withdrawal can be challenged to ascertain whether the 'withdrawal' was in fact a nullity. If a challenge is made there will be a hearing, where the Appellant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the withdrawal was invalid.
"We emphasize that there is no question of 'reinstating' an appeal which has been validly withdrawn. Once the withdrawal notice has been given to the Tribunal the appeal is no longer pending before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has no further function; (it is in the Latin form: functus officio). The only possible legal issue remaining is whether the purported withdrawal is in fact a valid one. If it is invalid, then the appeal remains extant and pending before the Tribunal. This point, of course, has important consequences relating to the ability to remove the Appellant and the continuation of any leave he or she may have by virtue of s.3C of the Immigration Act 1971."
"REOPENING WITHDRAWN APPEALS
Although a withdrawn appeal cannot be reinstated, it is possible for an appellant to argue that the appeal was not withdrawn properly, and therefore is still extant. Since the withdrawal will have been seen and accepted by the appellate authorities, it is up to them to consider re-opening the appeal. The appellant should therefore be advised to contact the Secretary to the Tribunal, and any enforcement action should be suspended until the outcome is known."
7.26 The Tribunal in AP  UKAIT 00022 said that 'when an application is made to challenge a notice of withdrawal as invalid the Tribunal will then proceed to hear the application' and expressed the test by which it would determine the application as follows:
Based on all of the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the withdrawal was not the result of a deliberate and informed decision; "in other words, that the mind of the applicant did not go with his act of abandonment [withdrawal]" before concluding that the purported withdrawal was in fact a nullity and the appeal is extant.
"(i) The Appellant has had an almost immediate change of mind, which is promptly communicated to a representative, prior to the matter coming for hearing before the Tribunal (as in Adewole);
(ii) A letter or notice purporting to withdraw an appeal has been sent to the Respondent, rather than to the Tribunal itself - (NB. A notice of withdrawal should have no legal validity until the actual notice of appeal is communicated to the Tribunal, either in writing or at a hearing before the Tribunal );
(iii) A withdrawal has been communicated to the Tribunal by a representative without there being clear understanding, or meeting of the minds, between an Appellant and the representative;
(iv) A withdrawal has been communicated to the Tribunal by a representative on the instructions of a Sponsor, (who has completed section 5 of the appeal form), rather than on the actual instructions of the Appellant;
(v) A representative has communicated a withdrawal to the Tribunal in error, either through lack of due care, or simple mistake."
7.28 Where it is alleged that a previous representative communicated a withdrawal to the Tribunal in error or without instructions, the former representative should be notified and told that they can write to the Tribunal giving any explanation and appear at the hearing if they wish and a waiver of privilege should be given.
7.29 The Tribunal accepted on the facts of AP's case that there had been a misunderstanding during the interpreting process and although the appellant had signed a notice saying that she withdrew her appeal and that the notice had been translated to her, she did not appreciate the effect of the notice as a result of an interpretation error.
7.29A But for the decision in AP  UKAIT 00022, one might have assumed that if the First-tier Tribunal has issued the notice referred to in rule 17(3), it could be challenged only by way of appeal to the Upper Tribunal or judicial review. The procedure set out in AP is therefore welcome. There was no discussion in AP about time limits for making the application but it will obviously be best practice (and safest) to make the application (which can presumably be done by letter) as soon as reasonably practical after the need for the application comes to light.
7.29B There was also no discussion about how the refusal of an application contesting the validity of a withdrawal could be challenged. The procedure is not provided for by the rules and the notice referred to in rule 17(3) will ordinarily already have been issued. See also below re the discussion of abandonment.
7.30 Rule 16 deals with abandonment of appeals. It provides that:
(1) A party must notify the Tribunal if they are aware that—
(a) the appellant has left the United Kingdom;
(b) the appellant has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
(c) a deportation order has been made against the appellant; or
(d) a document listed in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the 2006 Regulations has been issued to the appellant.
(2) Where an appeal is treated as abandoned pursuant to section 104(4A) of the 2002 Act or paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to 2006 Regulations, the Tribunal must send the parties a notice informing them that the appeal is being treated as abandoned or finally determined, as the case may be.
(3) Where an appeal would otherwise fall to be treated as abandoned pursuant to section 104(4A) of the 2002 Act, but the appellant wishes to pursue their appeal, the appellant must provide a notice, which must comply with any relevant practice direction, to the Tribunal and each other party so that it is received within 28 days of the date on which the appellant was sent notice of the grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom or was sent the document listed in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the 2006 Regulations, as the case may be.
(4) An appeal under section 82(1) brought by a person while he is in the United Kingdom shall be treated as abandoned if the appellant leaves the United Kingdom.
(4A) An appeal under section 82(1) brought by a person while he is in the United Kingdom shall be treated as abandoned if the appellant is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (subject to subsections (4B) and (4C)).
(4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on the ground relating to the Refugee Convention specified in section 84(1)(g) where the appellant–
(a) is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a period exceeding 12 months, and
(b) gives notice, in accordance with Tribunal Procedure Rules , that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.
(4C) Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on the ground specified in section 84(1)(b) where the appellant gives notice, in accordance with Tribunal Procedure Rules , that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.
(5) An appeal under section 82(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) or (f) shall be treated as finally determined if a deportation order is made against the appellant.
• refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom,
• refusal of a certificate of entitlement under section 10 of this Act,
• refusal to vary a person's leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom if the result of the refusal is that the person has no leave to enter or remain,
• variation of a person's leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom if when the variation takes effect the person has no leave to enter or remain,
• revocation under section 76 of this Act of indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
7.32A For cases to which the 2014 appeals regime applies (see chapter 1 for an explanation of the transitional provisions), s. 104(4A)-(4B) have been amended to reflect the fact that an appeal now lies only against the refusal of a protection claim, a human rights claim, or the revocation of protection status. They now state that:
(4A) An appeal under section 82(1) brought by a person while he is in the United Kingdom shall be treated as abandoned if the appellant is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (subject to subsection (4B) ).
(4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply to an appeal in so far as it is brought on a ground specified in section 84(1)(a) or (b) or 84(3) (asylum or humanitarian protection) where the appellant–
(b) gives notice, in accordance with Tribunal Procedure Rules, that he wishes to pursue the appeal in so far as it is brought on that ground.
Sections 104(4), (4C) and (5) have been repealed but s. 92(8) has replaced s. 104(4) and provides that an appeal brought from within the United Kingdom will be treated as abandoned if the appellant leaves the UK before it is finally determined, unless it has been certified under s. 94(1) or (7) or s. 94B (see chapter 3 for certification powers).
7.33 There is no longer (as there once was) any power conferred on the Tribunal to treat an appeal as abandoned because it is satisfied, including by reference to a failure to comply with directions, that the appellant is no longer pursuing the appeal. The deliberate omission of a previous express power strongly suggests that no continuing power can be implied to treat an appeal as abandoned in any circumstances other than those listed in rule 16.
7.33A Note that under s. 104(4B), an appeal may be continued where the appellant is granted leave to remain. Rule 16(3) lays down the procedure to be followed. In cases to which the old appeals provisions apply, the right of appeal arises only if leave is granted for 12 months or more; where the 2014 appeals provisions apply there is no such limitation. In FA (Iraq) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 696, the Court of Appeal held that the right of appeal against the refusal of asylum where a person was granted 12 months or more leave to remain must be read as including a right of appeal on humanitarian protection grounds, in order to comply with EU law. The same reasoning would apply to the right to continue an appeal under s. 104(4B), and this is now expressly provided for in s. 104(4B) as amended by the 2014 Act, where the 2014 appeals provisions apply.
7.34 It was established in Gremesty v SSHD (01/TH/00096)  INLR 132 that a "notice informing them that the appeal is being treated as abandoned or finally determined" was appealable to the IAT (which could hear appeals against "determinations", defined in the 2000 Procedure Rules as "the decision of the Appellate Authority to allow or dismiss an appeal and the reasons for that decision"). Although that definition was not kept in the 2003 Procedure Rules, in MM and others (Out of time appeals) Burundi *  UKIAT 00182 the Tribunal considered that there would be a right of appeal against decisions "which confirm that an appeal is at an end, eg in relation to the abandonment or withdrawal of an appeal", a finding which it described as consistent with Gremesty. Under the present system, permission to appeal may be sought to the Upper Tribunal against the First-tier's "decision on the appeal" rather than its determination (Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s.11). An appeal may not be brought against an "excluded decision", which includes, by art 3(m) of the Appeals (Excluded Decisions) Order 2009, "a procedural, ancillary or preliminary decision". Similar provisions apply to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal. Although the Tribunal has not as yet reported a decision on the matter (and nor was there any reported decision of the AIT in relation to applications for reconsideration, which also excluded procedural, ancillary or preliminary decisions), it would seem likely in light of Gremesty and MM that the Tribunal will accept that the issuing of a notice that the appeal was abandoned was "its decision on the appeal" (and not a procedural, ancillary or preliminary decision) and therefore entertain an application for permission to appeal. The reasons for departing from MM in relation to decisions not to extend time for appealing in BO and Others (Extension of time for appealing) Nigeria  UKAIT 00035 (see paras 4.26B-D) were concerned with the express wording of rule 10(6), which described such a decision as a "preliminary decision". If not, the remedy is judicial review.
7.35 Rule 18 provides that:
18.—(1) The Secretary of State must, upon issuing a certificate under section 97 or 98 of the 2002 Act which relates to a pending appeal, provide notice of the certification to the Tribunal.
(2) Where a notice of certification is provided under paragraph (1), the Tribunal must—
(a) notify the parties; and
(b) take no further action in relation to the appeal.