Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA026062015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 18 April 2016
On 17 June 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

sajid nawaz
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Marshall
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant, Sajid Nawaz, was born on 7 October 1986 and is a male citizen of Pakistan. He appeals against the decision of the respondent to refuse him asylum and to issue directions for his removal to Pakistan. That decision was taken on 3 February 2015. First-tier (Judge Hillis) in a Decision and Reasons promulgated on 27 April 2015 dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. I find that the judge has erred in law such that his decision falls to be set aside. The appellant's case was that he had been arrested having attended a demonstration on 4 July 2013. He paid a bribe and secured his release from detention. On 10 July 2014, he attended a meeting which had been broken up by the police. The appellant escaped and an FIR was issued against him. Despite the incident on 10 July 2014 and its aftermath being of particular significance in the appellant's claim, the judge makes no reference to it. It is clear from the decision [16] that the judge has confused the incident on 10 July 2014 with another incident on 4 July 2013.
3. Secondly, the appellant had submitted a number of documents in support of his claim on which the judge has made no finding. The documents included an arrest warrant. I agree with Mr Marshall's submission that, given that the documents prima facie appear to corroborate the appellant's account, it was important for the judge to make an assessment of the documents. I note also that the judge does not appear to have made any findings regarding the evidence the appellant gave before the First-tier Tribunal.
4. In the circumstances, I find that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside. There will need to be a further fact-finding exercise which is best conducted by the First-tier Tribunal (not Judge Hillis).
Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 27 April 2015 is set aside. None of the findings of fact shall stand. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (not Judge Hillis) for that Tribunal to remake the decision.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 1 June 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane