Tribunal decisions

The decision

St

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/08682/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

At Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
on 16th November 2015
on 16th January 2017

Before

DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL FARRELLY

Between

P. G.
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

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 the original Appellant. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to contempt of court proceedings.

Representation:
For the Appellant: Kanaga Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr Kotas, Home Office Presenting Officer.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. I refer to the parties as they were in the First tier Tribunal. This is the appellant's appeal from the decision of First-tier Immigration Judge Fox
2. The appellant is a national of Sri Lanka. He claimed asylum on the basis he was at risk of persecution from the Sri Lankan authorities if returned. This was on the basis of political opinion, namely suspected involvement with the LTTE.
3. He had been in the United Kingdom as a student from July 2010. He returned to Sri Lanka for a visit on 15 September 2013 accompanied by his wife. He claims that at the airport he was questioned and then released. Several days later the authorities came to his home and removed him. He was detained for 10 days, during which time he was questioned about LTTE activities and tortured. He was then released. With the help of an agent he was able to leave Sri Lanka in October 2013, using his own passport passing through control at the airport. He claimed the agent had directed him to a particular immigration official who facilitated this.
4. Immigration Judge Fox did not find the claim credible. Amongst the reasons advanced by the judge was the fact that the appellant claimed he was released and was able to depart from the airport (see paragraphs 48, 53 and 56 of the determination).
5. In seeking leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal it was contended that insufficient account was given by the judge to the prevalence of bribery and corruption in Sri Lanka as set out in the country guidance decision of GJ and Others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319.(see para 170 for instance)
6. The appellant's representatives had arranged a medical report in respect of scarring which was placed before the judge. In seeking leave it was contended that the decision indicates that the judge had already reached a view on credibility and only considered the medical evidence as confirming this rather than using it as part of the overall assessment process.(See JL (medical reports-credibility) China [2013]UKUT 00145.
7. By letter dated 21 September 2015 the respondent has confirmed that the application is not being opposed.
8. Having considered the grounds of appeal; the leave granted; and having heard from both representatives, I agree that the decision of First-tier Judge Fox cannot stand. The credibility assessment is fundamentally flawed by the approach taken to the medical evidence and does not adequately reflect the prevalence of corruption within the country. I direct that the matter be referred for a hearing de novo to the First Tier Tribunal.

Decision.
The decision of First-tier Judge Fox dismissing the appeal materially errs in law and is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Farrelly