AA/05720/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 20 Sep 2016
• Promulgation date: 27 Sep 2016
• Publication date: 4 Jun 2020
• Last updated on: 4 Jun 2020

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/05720/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 20th September 2016
On 27th September 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN


Between

MR SAMATAR [O]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr G Brown (instructed by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit)
For the Respondent: Mr C Bates (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, by the Appellant in relation to a Decision and Reasons of Judge J S Law promulgated on the 27th January 2016 by which he dismissed the Appellant's asylum and humanitarian protection claim.
2. The Appellant claims to be a member of the Midgan clan from Afgoye in Somalia and to fear Al-Shabab.
3. This was not the Appellant's first appeal. He had earlier had his appeal dismissed by Judge Hall and that decision upheld by a decision of Designated Immigration Judge Lewis promulgated in 2010. He was found to be without credibility. He was found to be from Djibouti, not Somalia and thus not at risk.
4. There was then, in 2013, an appeal in relation to his brother (confirmed by DNA evidence) where his brother succeeded under the Refugee reunion provisions and then entered the UK to join his wife.
5. Judge Law heard from both the Appellant and his brother and dismissed the appeal.
6. The grounds upon which permission to appeal was granted assert that the First-tier Tribunal Judge misapplied Devaseelan [2003] Imm AR 1, ignored the findings of Judge Owens in 2013 who had accepted his brother's identity as a Somali national born in Afgoye and gave inadequate reasons for rejecting the brother's nationality, finding that the passport could not be relied upon as it had expired.
7. It is clear from the Decision and Reasons that Judge Law did not address his mind to the significance of the findings in relation to the brother's identity and his rejection of the passport evidence because it had expired bordered on the perverse.
8. On the basis of his rejection of the brother's nationality he followed the earlier determination and found this Appellant not to be Somali.
9. The determination cannot stand as the brother's accepted identity is clearly directly relevant evidence.
10. The Judge cannot be said to have applied anxious scrutiny to the case and as a result of his findings gave no consideration to risk on return to Somalia.
11. I find the First-tier Tribunal made material errors of law in the Decision and Reasons and set it aside in its entirety.
12. As the Appellant has not had his claim to fear persecution in Somalia properly considered in the First-tier Tribunal it is appropriate that the appeal be remitted to that Tribunal for a full rehearing.

Decision
The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is allowed to the extent that it is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a full rehearing.
There having been no application for an anonymity order I do not make one.


Signed Date 20th September 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin