AA/04594/2011

• Status of case: Unreported
• Promulgation date: 10 Jun 2013
• Last updated on: 26 Nov 2013

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/04594/2011


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Bradford
Determination Sent
On 5 April 2013
On 10 June 2013
Prepared 8 April 2013



Before

MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVEY


Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Appellant
and

Parviz Yadollahi

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Miss R Pettersen, Senior Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Miss S Harrison Solicitor of Halliday Reeves Law Firm


DECISION AND REMITTAL


1. The Respondent (the Claimant) a national of Iran, date of birth 20 February 1971, appealed against the Respondent’s decision to refuse the grant of asylum on 22 March 2011 but granting discretionary leave to remain until 21 March 2014. The appeal by the Respondent came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Cox (the Judge) sitting at Bradford on 7 December 2011, On 9 January 2012 the judge allowed the appeal under the Refugee Convention and under the Human Rights Convention although he did not identify any particular Article nor apparently was one actually relied upon. In any event the Secretary of State in the grounds of appeal to this Tribunal properly identified the failure to give any reasons for the finding under the Human Rights Act. Permission to appeal was given by Designated First-tier Tribunal Judge Wilson on 13 February 2012.

2. It is clear that the issue of Article 1F of the 1951 Convention was before the judge but the judge; posed the question in the following terms “I have now to determine whether the Appellant ‘committed’ crimes against humanity”.

3. Article 1F states:-
‘The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious grounds for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’

3. The judge noted that the Respondent has to establish the Appellant had personal knowledge of, and intended to contribute to, the commission of crimes against humanity but failed to consider whether or not the evidence established there were “serious grounds for considering” the Appellant had committed a proscribed crime, rather than whether he had committed one.

4. The parties were agreed that it was appropriate for this appeal to be allowed to the extent that the issue of Article 1F of the Refugee Convention should be properly considered by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cox in accordance with the case law and in particular to have regard to the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility under Articles 31 to 33 and insofar as it may be relevant Article 30 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

5. We agreed with the parties that that was the appropriate course to be taken and that the decision must be remade in the light of the applicable law.

6. The appeal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted to First-tier Tribunal Judge B Cox to determine whether exclusion under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention applies to Parviz Yadollahi.


Signed Date 8 May 2013


Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey