AA/00469/2013

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00469/2013


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Bradford
Determination Promulgated
On 21 May 2014
On 27 May 2014




Before


UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR


Between


SARAH OJUDUN


Appellant
And



SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Khan, Counsel, instructed by Howells solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mrs Pettersen, HOPO

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS


1. This is the Appellant's appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mensah made following a hearing at Bradford on the 16 September 2013, dismissing her appeal against the Respondent's decision of the 22 December 2012 to refuse to grant her asylum.

2. The appellant's claim is based upon her fear of the father of her children, who is in Nigeria, and those who were involved in her being trafficked to the UK.

3. This matter first came before Judge Henderson on 18 April 2013 and she dismissed the appeal. That decision was set aside by the Upper Tribunal on 15 July 2013 for failure to consider the expert report, and remitted to the First tier Tribunal, hence the appeal before Judge Mensah.

4. The Appellant now argues that Judge Mensah fell into the same error in that she failed to make clear whether she was dealing with one expert report or two, and in particular failed to consider the second report at all, reached her conclusions on credibility first, and then used that as a reason for rejecting the expert's assessment and failed to take any account at all of the fact that the Appellant had a decision from the Competent Authority that there were reasonable grounds to believe that she had been trafficked.

5. Mrs Pettersen accepted that the decision could not stand and should be remade, and agreed that since there was a need for fresh credibility findings to be made, the appropriate course was remittal to the First-tier Tribunal.

6. Given the history of this matter, and the fact that it has been before 2 different fee paid judge at Bradford, and set aside twice, it should be listed before a salaried judge on the next occasion.



Signed Date 21/05/2014


Judge of the Upper Tribunal