AA/06074/2015

  • 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/06074/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 29th July, 2016, signed
0n 4th August, 2016
On 9th August, 2016



Before

Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley


Between

[F M]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Mair of Counsel, instructed by Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit
For the Respondent: Mr Harrison, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. In this appeal the appellant is a lady born on [ ] 1972, and a citizen of Iran. She appealed against the respondent's decision, taken on 20th March, 2015, to give direction for her removal from the United Kingdom having refused her claim to asylum. She appealed to the First-tier Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal Judge Ransley heard the appeal in Manchester on 9th December last. In her determination, promulgated on 21st December, 2015, First-tier Tribunal Judge Ransley dismissed the appellant's appeals on asylum and humanitarian grounds and dismissed her human rights appeal.

2. In support of the appellant's appeal she relied on a medical report prepared by Dr Charlotte Bryson of The Medical Foundation dated 19th November, 2015. Whilst Judge Ransley makes it abundantly clear that she has taken account of the medical report she has made no reference in her determination to the fact that Dr Bryson makes a diagnosis that the appellant is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Whilst Dr Bryson is not a psychiatrist, she does explain that she has had training from The Medical Foundation and that psychiatric training was part of her general medical training.

3. There was no reason why Judge Ransley should not have taken into account the diagnosis made by Dr Bryson and her failure to do so may well have had an impact on her credibility findings; it is simply impossible to tell.

4. I was urged by Mr Harrison to find that given that Judge Ransley demonstrates that she engaged fully with the report and refers to it extensively, it is unlikely to have made any impact on the judge's credibility findings, but I do not believe it is possible for say that. I have concluded that she has erred in law. In the circumstances I have no alternative but to set the determination aside.

5. In the interests of a fair and just disposal of this appeal I have concluded that I must remit for hearing de novo by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal other than Judge Ransley. None of the findings stand. Were I to adjourn to hear the appeal afresh myself it may take several months before the matter can be listed before me in Manchester.

6. I respectfully suggest that 2 hours should be allowed for the hearing of the appeal. A Farsi interpreter will be required.


Richard Chalkley
Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley