AA/09593/2015

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 8 Mar 2017
• Promulgation date: 5 Apr 2017
• Publication date: 22 Apr 2022
• Last updated on: 22 Apr 2022

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number AA/09593/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Centre City Tower, Birmingham
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 8th March 2017
On 5th April 2017


Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES


Between

JWAN ANWAR
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


For the Appellant: Mr S Vokes (Counsel, instructed by Coventry Law Centre)
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills (Home Office Presenting Officer)


DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant's asylum application was refused for the reasons given in the Refusal Letter of the 16th of June 2015. The Appellant had claimed to be a Syrian national and to fear return there and also with regard to events in Iran. In the Refusal Letter the Secretary of State rejected the Appellant's claimed nationality but accepted at paragraph 29 that if the Appellant were a Syrian national she would have established a real risk of persecution but in rejecting her claim to be Syrian that did not assist her.
2. The Appellant's appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Shanahan at Bennett House, Stoke on Trent on the 19th of August 2016. In a decision promulgated on the 16th of September 2016 the Appellant's appeal was allowed. Having considered the evidence relied on by the Secretary of State, principally a language analysis report, the Judge found at paragraph 50 that the Appellant is a Syrian Kurd and given the concession in paragraph 29 of the Refusal Letter was entitled to refugee status.
3. The Secretary of State’s grounds of application argue that having found that the Appellant was a Syrian Kurd and that she would be at risk of treatment contrary to article 2 and 3 it was not clear why the matter had been allowed under the Refugee Convention. There was no convention reason for her to fear return to Syria. Permission was granted on the basis that the Judge had not explained why the Judge allowed the asylum claim but dismissed the humanitarian protection claim.
4. At the hearing Mr Mills accepted that the grounds of application had overlooked the concession made in the Refusal Letter that the Appellant would be at risk for a convention reason if she was Syrian. The grounds had not challenged the finding that the Appellant was Syrian and as Mr Vokes pointed out the Judge had referred expressly to the concession.
5. In not challenging the finding that the Appellant is a Kurd from Syria the Secretary of State cannot complain that the Judge combined that finding with the explicit concession in paragraph 29 of the decision. It follows that the Judge did not err in finding that the Appellant is a refugee, that was the only decision that was available in the light of the unchallenged finding made. Accordingly there is no error and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal stands as the disposal of the Appellant's appeal.

CONCLUSIONS
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.
I do not set aside the decision.

Anonymity
The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 and I make no order.

Fee Award
The First-tier Tribunal made a fee award which remains undisturbed by this decision.



Signed:

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (IAC)

Dated: 20th March 2017