Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/07589/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10 March 2017
On 13 March 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

CR
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Mutebuka a Solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application for asylum or ancillary protection on 8 April 2015. Her appeal against that was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Cope (“the Judge”) following a hearing on 18 July 2016 and not 2015 as stated on that determination.
2. I retain the anonymity order previously made pursuant to Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 as the Appellant’s asylum and ancillary protection claim, for reasons that will become clear, remains outstanding.
3. Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede granted permission to appeal (17 November 2016). She said it is arguable that the Judge materially erred in failing to take into account an incident the Appellant referred to in 2013 when considering whether there had been an ongoing interest by the authorities such as to impact on the risk on return.
4. The Respondent filed a rule 24 notice (5 January 2017) saying, in essence, that adequate reasons had been given and the Judge was entitled to place little weight on an expert’s report. Before me Mr Diwnycz relied on the rule 24 notice. Mr Mutebuka added nothing of relevance.
Discussion
5. The Appellant referred in her statement before the Judge (31 March 2015 at [17]) to an incident when police officers visited her former home in 2013 prior to the elections in Zimbabwe that year looking for all those who had conducted previous elections. This Appellant had been a polling officer and expressed concern that her details had been given to the police who were working with ZEC/ZANU PF.
6. The Judge noted a telephone call on 20 October 2014 as being the first enquiry for 3 years from 2011 regarding her mother stating that men in dark glasses came to the house who were believed to be ZANU PF agents ([82/83]).
7. This ignored the evidence in the Appellant’s statement (which she had adopted) of that other enquiry in 2013. In my judgement, it was a material error of law to make no finding on the 2013 incident as it was material to the finding relating to 2014, and also to the criticism of the expert evidence [108] regarding there being an information exchange system between government departments and ZANU PF.

Conclusion on error of law

8. I am therefore satisfied that the Judge made a material error of law as identified above.

9. Mr Mutebuka wished me to retain the matter in the Upper Tribunal. Mr Diwnycz had no preference. I determined that it was appropriate for me to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal and that no findings should be preserved as the findings flowed into each other and it was difficult to delineate them out. Despite this having already been remitted once, it would be unjust not to do so again as it was not a limited fact finding exercise.

Decision:

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I set aside the decision.

The matter shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal in Bradford as the Appellant lives in Leeds, not before Judge Cope, Judge Bircher, or Judge Dineen, with a time estimate of 4 hours.

Signed:
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
10 March 2017