Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/09268/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Stoke
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On November 30, 2016
On December 1, 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

MR GORDEN [N]
(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
Appellant Mr Bates (Home Office Presenting Officer)
Respondent Ms Manning, Counsel, instructed by JM Wilson

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The respondent in these proceedings was the appellant before the First-tier Tribunal. From hereon I have referred to the parties as they were in the First-tier Tribunal so that for example reference to the respondent is a reference to the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
2. I do not make an anonymity order under rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698 as amended).
3. The appellant is a national of Cameroon. On September 22, 2013 the appellant entered the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (General) Student. On March 5, 2014 his leave was curtailed because his sponsor withdrew sponsorship.
4. On December 2, 2014 he was arrested on the basis he was attempting to enter into a sham marriage. Removal directions were issued for December 5, 2014 but he claimed asylum on December 8, 2014. The respondent refused his application on June 5, 2015 and a decision was taken to remove him by way of directions under paragraph 10A of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.
5. The appellant appealed that decision on June 19, 2015 under Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and his appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Meyler (hereinafter referred to as "the Judge" on July 4, 2016. In a decision promulgated on July 13, 2016 she allowed his appeal on asylum grounds and human rights grounds.
6. The respondent appealed the Judge's decision on July 25, 2016 and permission to appeal was initially refused by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Dineen on August 4, 2016. Permission to appeal was renewed to the Upper Tribunal and Upper Tribunal Judge C Lane fund there was an arguable error in law on September 5, 2016. He found that it was arguable that given the doubts expressed by the Judge about the appellant's account and some of the documentary evidence the Judge may have erred in her analysis of the newspaper article as it was inconsistent with her consideration of the other evidence.
7. The matter came before me on the above date and on that occasion I heard submissions from both representatives.
SUBMISSIONS
8. Mr Bates adopted the grounds of appeal and submitted the finding in paragraph [55] was flawed because the newspaper article referred to the appellant to being a youth leader-something the Judge had previously rejected. The Judge had rejected virtually all of his account and this newspaper article should have been looked at in the round.
9. Miss Manning submitted the Judge had looked at all the evidence and the respondent's submission was nothing more than a disagreement with the Judge's findings. She accepted the finding at paragraph [55] was at odds with the remainder of the decision but submitted the Judge had clearly attached weight to this document and there was no error.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
10. In granting permission to appeal Upper Tribunal Judge Lane identified one possible arguable error in law.
11. In paragraph [55] the Judge considered a newspaper article that had been produced by the appellant. This document was in both its original format and an online version. The latter made no reference to the appellant's name whereas the former did. That article stated the appellant was a noted youth leader but this was something that the Judge had already rejected in paragraph [34]. She had given detailed reasons for rejecting this claim and her subsequent acceptance of the newspaper article is at odds with the rest of her decision. Her acceptance of the content of this report led her to allowing the appeal.
12. The newspaper article should have been considered in the round with all the other evidence on the issue. The fact there appeared to be two versions of the article and the judge had already rejected other documentary evidence brought the finding into question.
13. I am satisfied that her approach to this document, against the background of an otherwise detailed consideration, fell into error as she considered it in isolation despite having made adverse findings on his position earlier in her decision.
14. In the circumstances I find there is an error in law. This error affected both decisions and I set aside the decision.
15. Both representatives agreed that the case should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
DECISION
16. 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.
17. The appeal is remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal for these issues to be addressed hearing under Section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
18. The matter should not be listed before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Meyler.
19. I direct that the appellant's solicitors do file and serve on the Tribunal and respondent any additional statements and evidence not less than five days before the hearing of this matter.
20. No interpreter is required as the appellant stated none was needed.

Signed: Dated: December 1, 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis