AA/07464/2014

  • 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 Numbers: AA/07464/2014



THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at The Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast
Decision promulgated
On 11 November 2016
On 15 November 2016



Before

The President, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey


Between

NAHLA SULIMAN HAMED
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation
Appellant: Mr T Jebb, of Counsel, instructed by Nelson Singleton Solicitors
Respondent: Mr M Matthews, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION
1. The origins of this appeal lie in a decision made on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the "Secretary of State"), dated 08 September 2014, whereby the application for asylum of the Appellant, an Arab national of Sudan aged 34 years, was refused. The FtT was, simultaneously, seized of a similar appeal on the part of the Appellant's spouse. The appeal of the Appellant was dismissed, whereas that of her spouse was allowed.
2. Permission to appeal was granted in the following terms:
"Given that the Judge had decided to allow the asylum appeal of the Appellant's husband on the basis of his membership of the non-Arab Darfuri Tunjur tribe, it is arguable that [the] reasons for dismissing the Appellant's asylum grounds were inadequate in failing to consider that although herself an Arab, the Appellant might or would be perceived on return as the member of a non-Arab Darfuri family through marriage."
It is undeniably correct that the decision of the FtT does not address this issue. The question is whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to do so.
3. I consider that the answer to this question is to be found mainly in the grounds of appeal to the FtT. These include the following passage:
"Irrespective of where I live in Sudan I will be subject to persecution because I married a man of African ethnicity and I am an Arab - this type of union is anathema to both Africans and to Arabs."
It is common case that this issue was also canvased at the hearing before the FtT.
4. I consider that it was incumbent upon the FtT to engage with this discrete issue and make findings accordingly. In an otherwise thorough and well-reasoned decision, the FtT did not do so. I conclude that its decision is unsustainable in law in consequence.

ORDER
5. The decision of the FtT is hereby set aside. I remit the appeal to a differently constituted FtT for rehearing and fresh decision.





THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY
PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Date: 11 November 2016