Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/09613/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 19 September 2016
On 22 December 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GLEESON

Between

AREFREZA [K]
(no anonymity order made)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Miss A Holmes, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr D Bazini, Counsel, instructed by Jein Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to grant him international protection by way of refugee recognition or humanitarian protection or leave to remain in the United Kingdom on human rights grounds and under Article 2 3 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Permission was granted on the basis that the First-tier Tribunal had arguably made inadequate findings of fact in its decision, and in particular, failed to make it clear whether the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had genuinely been posting oppositionist web blogs about the Iranian authorities, both from Iran and later from the United Kingdom, for a period of three years before the undisputed closing-down of his internet blogging account by the Iranian authorities.
3. The Secretary of State's Rule 24 reply to the grant of permission stated that
"The judge has found that the appellant's alleged blogging activities were intrinsically linked to the other claimed events such as the raid on his house (determination paragraph 32). Having found those events not credible, it is submitted, that the Tribunal did not accept the blogging activities either (Determination paragraphs 32 and 33). In any event, it is noted that the blogs were not in the appellant's own identity and the grounds fail to establish how the assessment of risk could be any different even if the Tribunal had accepted the blogging activities when they were not identifiable or linked to the appellant".
4. Mr Bazini has taken me through the decision and it is clear that the Tribunal misdirected itself as to the effects of both Danian v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] EWCA Civ 3000 and AB and Others (internet activity - state of evidence) [2015] UKUT 257 (IAC). It is clear, also, that many of the First-tier Tribunal's findings of fact are mutually inconsistent.
5. In the light of the review of the contents of the determination which has been undertaken this morning Miss Holmes does not maintain the submissions in the Rule 24 Reply.
6. I find that the reasoning in this determination is irrational and unsustainable, in the manner contemplated by Lord Justice Brooke at [90] in R (Iran) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982:
"90. ?2. A finding might only be set aside for error of law on the grounds of perversity if it was irrational or unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, or one that was wholly unsupported by the evidence.
3. A decision should not be set aside for inadequacy of reasons unless the adjudicator failed to identify and record the matters that were critical to his decision on material issues, in such a way that the IAT was unable to understand why he reached that decision."
7. The First-tier Tribunal's decision is perverse and I am unable to understand its reasoning. The decision will be set aside and remade afresh in the First-tier Tribunal, with no findings of fact or credibility preserved.

Conclusions
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. The decision in this appeal will be remade in the First-tier Tribunal.

Signed: Judith A J C Gleeson Date: 21 December 2016
Upper Tribunal Judge Gleeson