Case No: C5/2009/1272
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 574
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No.OA/36158/2008]

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Friday, 8thApril 2011

Before:

LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

	FAYANJU 	
Appellant	
	
- and -		

ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER	

Respondent
	
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(DAR Transcript of 
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No:  020 7404 1400  Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented.

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Lord Justice Sullivan:

1.	I have asked for this appeal to be listed for mention so that the court can explain why the appeal must be dismissed because it has become academic.  The appeal is an appeal from the refusal of entry clearance as a student to study information technology.  The application was rejected on the basis that the appellant could not show that he had the necessary English language skills to undertake the course and that he had not shown the ability to maintain his family in Nigeria.  The appeal was dismissed by the AIT, reconsideration was ordered and again the appeal was dismissed by an immigration judge.

2.	However, permission to appeal was granted by Longmore LJ on 29 October 2009.  Since then the appeal has been adjourned on two occasions: a hearing on 6 May 2010 was adjourned by Ward LJ because the respondent had been unable to contact the appellant, and then the matter came back on 24 November 2010 and it was adjourned by Munby LJ who made an order dated 1 December 2010 setting out a number of directions, to which I will refer in a moment.  By the date of the second adjournment the Treasury Solicitor in letters to the court had raised the issue as to whether the appeal was academic in any event, because the metropolitan college where the appellant intended to study did not hold a sponsor licence and was no longer in business.  So the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the respondent asked for the appeal to be dismissed without a hearing.  In response to this the appellant contended that the college continued to do business in a different name and claimed that under that name it had a sponsor licence and that he had a place on the course which was open to him, and he asked for more time in which to obtain documentation to support his claim.  

3.	In his order dated 1 December 2010 Munby LJ gave the appellant until 7 January 2011 to provide the documents he said that he was seeking from the college, and he also gave further directions permitting the respondent to renew the application for the appeal to be dismissed without a hearing if the appellant had not managed to obtain the documents.  The appellant then asked for yet another extension of time, which was granted.  He was asked to write to the college, because it did not appear that he had done so.  

4.	In due course the Civil Appeals Office sent a further letter on 25 January 2011 referring to the order of Munby LJ, effectively saying “Where are the documents?” to the appellant.  The appellant’s response was, by letter dated 1 February 2011, that no response had been made by the college, and he said: 

“In this regard, I urge the court to decide this case without attendance of the parties to avoid further delay.

I [am] not going to be represented at the court also am not attending the court hearing.”

I should add for completeness that at one stage it seemed as though pro bono assistance was going to be available, but for whatever reason it subsequently because clear that pro bono support was being withdrawn.

5.	In these circumstances the matter was put before me for directions and I directed that the appeal be heard without the attendance of the parties.  The appellant should not be given more time to produce the documents because he had had ample time to produce them.  A letter to that effect was sent to the appellant on 3 February 2011.  It is plain from that account that I have given that the appeal is now academic, and indeed it should have been withdrawn; it not having been withdrawn, it must now be dismissed.

6.	The only other matter to mention is that the respondent asks for costs.  In all the somewhat peculiar circumstances of this case, I think that the best thing to say is “least said, soonest mended”, and I therefore make no order as to costs.

Order:  Appeal dismissed.