AA/03521/2015

  • 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/03521/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Columbus House, Newport
Decision Promulgated
On 30 September 2016
On 05 October 2016



Before

The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey, President,

Between

aj
[ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE]
Appellant

and


THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent



Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr A Joseph, of Counsel, instructed by Broudie Jackson and Canter Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr I Richards, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION

1. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Richards, representing the Secretary of State, made the following acknowledgment.

2. With specific reference to the fourth of the grounds of appeal, Mr Richards accepted that the Appellant's claim that he is a Christian was not challenged at any stage - during the asylum interview, in the refusal letter, at the first instance hearing or in the determination of the First-tier Tribunal. This, Mr Richards stated, was confirmed by the presenting officer's note of the first instance hearing. The Tribunal essentially found that the Appellant is at risk of persecution on account of his religion. Mr Richards further acknowledged that if the fourth of the Secretary of State's grounds of appeal fails, the other asserted errors of law, even if established, could not amount to material defects.

3. Mr Richards' approach to the appeal is, in my judgement, entirely proper. For the reasons summarised above, the fourth of the Secretary of State's grounds of appeal, which challenges, root and branch, the Judge's finding that the Appellant is a Christian, is manifestly unsustainable. This goes to the heart of the case, with the result that the other grounds of appeal, even if made out individually or collectively, could not alter the appropriate outcome. In the event, neither representative dilated on any of the other three grounds of appeal.


DECISION

4. The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the FtT is affirmed accordingly.








THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY
PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Date: 30 September 2016