Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-BH-PMP-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06777/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bennett House, Stoke
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 16th January 2017
On 7th February 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GARRATT

Between

MOHAMAD [M]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr R Martin of Counsel instructed by Hasan Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr C Bates Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS

1. On 15th November 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Grant-Hutchison gave permission to the appellant to appeal against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Juss in which he dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Respondent to refuse asylum, humanitarian and human rights protection to the appellant, an adult male citizen of Iran.
Grounds of Application
2. The grounds argued that the judge had failed to set out conclusions on the core issues of the appellant's account or, in the alternative, on the basis that the appellant's account was accepted by the judge, he should have considered that the Iranian authorities would inevitably treat as serious his actions as the driver of a car carrying PJAK supporters that failed to stop at a roadblock.
3. Judge Grant-Hutchison gave permission because she thought it was arguable that the judge had not explained why he did or did not accept the appellant's account concerning the roadblock incident. It was also arguable that the judge had not considered whether or not the appellant would be at risk on return for his involvement in that incident in which the car had been shot at and someone injured and the parties were chased for some distance.
The Hearing
4. At the hearing Mr Bates helpfully conceded that the judge did not appear to have considered whether or not the appellant would be at risk on return because of the roadblock incident. He also agreed that it was not clear that the judge had accepted or rejected the appellant's account of giving a lift to PJAK supporters. He acknowledged that, if the judge had accepted that the incident had taken place, inadequate reasons had been given for the authorities not being interested in the appellant. He further agreed that the judge's emphasis on information suggesting that lifts were often given on the road in question was insufficient to justify rejection of the appellant's claims.
5. Mr Martin made very brief submissions contending that the matters conceded by the Home Office were material and so the matter should be heard afresh before the First-tier Tribunal.
Conclusions
6. After hearing submissions I announced that I was satisfied that the decision showed errors on points of law such that it should be set aside and heard afresh before the First-tier Tribunal. My reasons for those conclusions follow.
7. In paragraph 23 of the decision the experienced judge carefully sets out the relevant parts of the appellant's claim relating to the checkpoint incident but it is not at all clear what conclusion the judge reached about the credibility of that evidence. In particular, the judge examines the assertion by the appellant that people commonly waited at a point on the road for a lift but suggests that it was not clear how the Iranian authorities would assume that those who were given a lift would be implicated in PJAK activities. However, in making that suggestion, the judge appears to have overlooked the appellant's claim that the authorities followed his car and shots were fired. Further, it was the appellant's claimed failure to stop at a checkpoint rather than the fact that he was giving a lift to other individuals that gave rise to the incident.
8. I agree with Mr Martin's contention that the judge's failures to reach clear and adequately reasoned findings on the checkpoint incident are material to the whole claim. The appellant has put forward the incident and the authority's interest in him as the reason for him seeking international protection. Thus, on the basis that the judge erred in reaching his findings on that matter, the appeal should be heard again by the First-tier Tribunal which will examine the credibility of all the evidence.
9. My conclusion that the matter should be re-heard by the First-tier Tribunal accords with the requirements of the Practice Statement for the Tribunal made by the Senior President of Tribunals on 25th September 2012 at paragraph 7.2.
Anonymity
10. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction nor do I consider one to be appropriate before the Upper Tribunal.
DIRECTIONS
11. The appeal will be reheard by the First-tier Tribunal sitting at the Stoke Hearing Centre on a date to be specified by the Resident Judge.
12. The hearing should not be before Judge Juss.
13. The time estimate for the hearing is three hours.
14. Representatives have indicated that an interpreter will not be required for the hearing.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Garratt