AA/03414/2013

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 29 Nov 2013
• Promulgation date: 19 Dec 2013
• Publication date: 4 Jan 2023
• Last updated on: 4 Jan 2023

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03414/2013


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester Crown Court
Determination sent
On 29th November 2013
On 19th December 2013



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCKEE
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN


Between

ms joyce kawoza
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Not Represented
For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison (Home Office Presenting Officer)


DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Malawi born on 26th May 1978. She appeals to the Upper Tribunal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge White) dated 21st May 2013 dismissing her appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse her asylum claim and remove her to Malawi.
2. Although not represented before us the Appellant was accompanied by a Miss Walimbwa of MRANG who indicated she was there to support the Appellant.
3. Permission to appeal was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Bird on 23rd January 2013 because she said that the fact that the determination sent to the Appellant was missing pages 3 and 4 amounted to a procedural irregularity and was arguably an error of law.
4. We disagree that there was an error of law. Firstly the determination was copied and sent to the Appellant by the Home Office, not the Tribunal and thus any photocopying error was not that of the Tribunal and secondly, the determination that was received contained the findings and reasons in their entirety. Pages 3 and 4 contain a recital of the law pertaining to asylum appeals and summarises the Appellant’s immigration history. The Appellant was aware of the reasons her appeal was dismissed, which is the main purpose of a determination.
5. Furthermore the Appellant has subsequently been sent a complete copy of the determination and thus has had an opportunity to raise any issues of errors of law. She does not suggest that the summary of her immigration history on page 4 is incorrect.
6. We asked the Appellant what other challenges she made to the determination and she said the Judge was wrong to say in the determination at paragraph 72 that she claimed to be in a relationship with a man who had not attended the hearing because he had a wife and children in the Congo. She told us she did not know where he got that from and she had not said it. We checked the Record of Proceedings and it is quite clear that she did tell the Judge that.
7. The remaining grounds seeking permission to appeal are no more than a disagreement with the Judge’s findings. It is clear from the determination that the Judge carefully assessed all the evidence and found numerous reasons for comprehensively disbelieving the Appellant’s claim and finding that she was not a witness of truth; indeed as demonstrated before us.
8. The Appellant has no credible reason to fear return to Malawi and no credible Article 8 claim of any merit.
9. The First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in its determination and the appeal to the Upper Tribunal is thus dismissed.


Signed Dated 29th November 2013

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin