Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-LEM-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: aa/08237/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 19 April 2016
On 4th May 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY

Between

(X M)
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Harding of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr D Clarke a Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. The appellant appeals against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Farmer to dismiss her appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse her appeal on asylum and human rights grounds and also to dismiss her appeal against the respondent's refusal to grant her international humanitarian protection.
2. The appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) by Upper Tribunal Judge Eshun because the Upper Tribunal Judge considered that the Immigration Judge may have reached inconsistent findings and failed to give proper weight to the appellant's claim that she had been persecuted/ill-treated.
3. The appeal came before me on 21 March 2016 when the grounds were fully argued by Mr Collins. I concluded at the end of the hearing that there appeared to be a material error of law in relation to the matters identified by Judge Eshun. I directed a further hearing at which the matter would receive further consideration by the Upper Tribunal. However, I observed in the final sentence of that decision that there was, apparently, a clear finding in paragraph 39 of the Immigration Judge's decision that there was a safe place in Albania to which the appellant could relocate. I noted that that "internal flight" alternative finding had not been impugned in the grounds of appeal. And I saw no reason why the decision should not, therefore, be allowed to stand.
4. Nevertheless, I directed a further hearing at which new witness statements and updated medical evidence was to be obtained.
The Hearing
5. Mr Harding did not seek to persuade the Tribunal that the decision to preserve the internal flight finding was wrong and stated that he had "no further representations" to make on behalf of his client.
6. Clearly, the respondent did not take issue with Mr Harding's representation that his client's appeal, as a consequence of the internal flight finding, was correctly dismissed by the FTT.
7. In the light of these concessions the decision of the FTT stands.
DECISION
Having reconsidered the matter following a further hearing at which both parties were represented I have concluded that there was no material error of law in the decision of the FTT in the light of its internal flight finding.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the decision to refuse the appellant asylum/human rights protection/humanitarian protection in the UK stands.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hanbury

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

As I have dismissed the appeal there can be no fee award.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hanbury