Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA011762015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Newport
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 2nd June 2016
On 13th June 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB

Between

N K
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms G Capel instructed by Migrant Legal Project
For the Respondent: Mr I Richards, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the appellant. This direction applies to both the appellant and to the respondent and a failure to comply with this direction could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings.
Introduction
2. The appellant is a citizen of Pakistan who was born on [ ] 1987. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 23 February 2011 as a student. On 14 November 2012, she married her husband, also a Pakistan national in an Islamic marriage in the UK. He had entered the UK on 4 April 2008 as a visitor but, subsequent to the expiry of his visa, he overstayed.
3. On 22 January 2013, the appellant applied for leave to remain outside the Rules but that was refused on 11 March 2013.
4. On 7 August 2013, the appellant made a claim for asylum. The basis of her claim was that she and her husband would be subject to an honour killing by her parents because she had married "a man outside her caste" in the UK without her parents' permission.
5. On 5 September 2013, the Secretary of State refused the appellant's claim for asylum, humanitarian protection and that her removal would breach Art 8. As a consequence, on 9 January 2015, the Secretary of State refused to vary the appellant's leave to remain and made a decision to remove her to Pakistan under s.47 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
The Appeal
6. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal with her husband and two children as her dependants.
7. In a determination promulgated on 23 October 2015, Judge Page dismissed the appellant's appeal. He made an adverse credibility finding and did not accept the appellant's account that she would be at risk (together with her husband) from her family in Pakistan as a result of her marriage. He also dismissed the appeal under Art 8 of the ECHR.
8. The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. On 16 November 2015, the First-tier Tribunal (DJ Zucker) granted the appellant permission to appeal.
9. On 4 December 2015, the Secretary of State filed a rule 24 response seeking to uphold the decision.
10. Thus, the appeal came before me.
Discussion
11. At the hearing, Mr Richards, on behalf of the Secretary of State conceded that the determination of the First-tier Tribunal could not stand and should be set aside. He accepted that the judge had materially erred in law in para 66 of his determination when he had counted against the appellant that she had not, in her earlier application for further leave to remain submitted on 22 January 2015, raised her fear that she would be at risk of an honour killing from her family as a result of her marriage. Mr Richards accepted that the appellant had, in fact, raised that matter in her application form as set out in para 8 of the grounds of appeal.

Decision and Disposal
12. Given the concession by the Secretary of State - which in my view is entirely properly made - the judge did materially err in law in para 66 of his determination such that his adverse credibility finding cannot stand and consequently his decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal on all grounds must be set aside.
13. For those reasons, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law. The decision is set aside.
14. Both representatives invited me to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo rehearing.
15. Having regard to the nature and extent of the fact finding required and having regard to para 7.2 of the Senior President's Practice Statement, the proper disposal of the appeal is to remit it to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo rehearing before a judge other than Judge Page.

Signed

A Grubb
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Date: 13 June 2016