AA/09195/2014

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 27 Jul 2017
• Promulgation date: 28 Jul 2017
• Publication date: 8 Sep 2017
• Last updated on: 8 Sep 2017

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/09195/2014


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Manchester IAC
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 27th July 2017
On 28th July 2017




Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER

Between


KHALID HASSAN LAMOURY
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms G Patel instructed by Broudie Jackson and Canter solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS


1. Following a hearing on 3rd May 2016, Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede found the First-tier Tribunal judge had erred in law and she set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal. A copy of her decision is annexed herewith.

2. The First-tier Tribunal judge had found the appellant was not at risk of being persecuted for a Refugee Convention reason and nor would his removal from the UK be a disproportionate interference in his Article 8 rights. The First-tier Tribunal judge also found that he was not at risk because of the security situation in Libya.

3. Upper Tribunal Judge Kebede found that the First-tier Tribunal judge had not erred in law in her conclusions that the appellant, who is a Libyan national, was not at risk of being persecuted for a Refugee Convention reason but Judge Kebede concluded that the background evidence was such that the First-tier Tribunal conclusions on Article 15(c) risk were not sustainable. The First-tier Tribunal decision was therefore set aside in that regard only.

4. Since that decision by Judge Kebede there has been further Country Guidance ZMM (Article 15(c) Libya CG [2017] UKUT 00263 (IAC) the headnote of which reads as follows:

The violence in Libya has reached such a high level that substantial grounds are shown for believing that a returning civilian would, solely on account of his presence on the territory of that country or region, face a real risk of being subject to a threat to his life or person.

5. The appellant, through his solicitors submitted a bundle of documents including reports since the promulgation of ZMM. There was no challenge to that material. Mr Harrison did not seek to distinguish ZMM or make any submission that the appellant would not be at real risk of being subject to a threat to his life or person solely on account of his presence in Libya. Although plainly it is for the appellant to prove his case, the lack of even a suggestion that this appellant would not be at risk renders any further consideration unnecessary, given ZMM.

6. I allow the appeal.


Conclusions:

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

The decision is set aside but the findings of the First-tier Tribunal with regards to the Refugee Convention and Article 8 preserved.

I re-make the decision in the appeal by allowing it.







Date 27th July 2017
Upper Tribunal Judge Coker