AA/08636/2015

  • 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/08636/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24 April 2017
On 25 April 2017



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

RAA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Brown of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Diwyncz a Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify RAA or any of her family members. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to Contempt of Court proceedings. I do so in order to preserve the anonymity of RAA whose mental health issues form a core part of the case.

2. The Respondent refused RAA’s application for asylum or ancillary protection on 15 May 2015. Her appeal against this was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Khan (“the Judge”) following a hearing on 15 July 2016.

The grant of permission

3. Upper Tribunal Judge Rimmington granted permission to appeal (8 December 2016) on the basis that it is arguable that it was unfair not to adjourn to obtain a psychiatric report, and there was a lack of scrutiny of the country background material.

Respondent’s position

4. It was conceded in the rule 24 notice (8 February 2017) that it was unfair not to adjourn to obtain a psychiatric report, and this was a material error of law. The matter should remain in the Upper Tribunal. Mr Diwyncz conceded that, in fact, as the lack a psychiatric report impacted on the weight to be attached to RAA’s ability to give evidence and on any credibility issues that flowed from that, she had not had a fair hearing at all and the matter should be remitted for a fresh hearing.

Discussion

5. Mr Brown agreed with the concession made by Mr Diwnyncz. So did I. It is appropriate to remit the matter de novo as the errors go beyond those contained within the Presidential Guidance for retention in the Upper Tribunal.

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.

I remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing, not before Judge Khan. The time estimate is 4 hours. To enable the relevant reports to be obtained, the matter shall not be relisted before 18 June 2017.



Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
24 April 2017