AA/03916/2015

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

The decision


IAC-fH-AR-V2

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03916/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11 November 2016
On 8 December 2016
Prepared 11 November 2016



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVEY


Between

W V
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr D Coleman, Counsel, instructed by S Satha & Co
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Senior Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS


1. The Appellant, a national of Sri Lanka, appealed against the Respondent's decision, dated 6 August 2015, to refuse an application based on Refugee Convention and other similar grounds. The appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Mackenzie (the judge) who, on 23 September 2016, dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal was given by First-tier Tribunal Judge Frankish on 18 October 2016.

2. Mr Coleman succinctly argued that the judge particularly [D paragraphs 41, 42, 43 and 44] made a number of adverse findings which formed the basis of the judge's view that was quite clear that the Appellant was not a credible witness.

3. The Appellant had claimed to be physically ill-treated by the security forces in Sri Lanka and had suffered mental heath problems as a result. The judge received medical evidence from Mr Mason, a specialist who was called to give evidence concerning scarring, and a Dr Obuaya concerning the Appellant's mental health.

4. It is clear from the decision at paragraphs 66 and 68 that the judge having reached the view that the Appellant was not a reliable or credible witness concluded that for that reason her credibility and reliability was not enhanced by the medical evidence that he had received from Mr Mason or Dr Obuaya and it is clear, as Mr Walker wholly correctly accepts, that the way the judge has set the matter out confounds the approach that has long been established in the case of Mibanga and Others [2005] EWCA Civ 367 and particularly as Mr Coleman highlights [D paragraphs 20, 24, 25 and 30].

5. In the circumstances it is with significant regret that there is going to be further delay but I am satisfied that in the light of the Presidential Statement and the unreliability of the judge's findings on the Appellant's credibility that the only course is for the matter to be returned to be remade in the First-tier Tribunal.

6. The Original Tribunal decision cannot stand. The matter will be remade in the First-tier Tribunal.


Directions

(1) List for hearing 2 hours
(2) Tamil interpreter
(3) Any further documents relating to the claim for Article 8 ECHR consideration that may arise to be served not less than 10 working days before the further hearing.

An anonymity order was made and that should be continued.

Signed Date 30 November 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey




TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

No fee is paid or payable and therefore there can be no fee award.

Signed Date 30 Novrmber 2016
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey