Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-NL-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/10081/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Liverpool
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 29th November 2016
On 20th December 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

Secretary of State for the Home Department
Appellant
and

Abdallah [A]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr G Harrison, Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr I Hussain, instructed by Lei Dat & Baig Solicitors

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the Secretary of State's appeal against the decision of Judge Ransley made following a hearing at Manchester on 19th April 2016.
Background
2. The claimant is a citizen of Kuwait born on 28th August 1995. He says that he is an undocumented Bidoun, a claim rejected by the appellant.
3. The judge accepted that the claimant was an undocumented Bidoun from Kuwait. She noted that the Secretary of State had raised several credibility issues in the Reasons for Refusal Letter and wrote as follows:
"Applying the lower standard of proof, I find that the appellant by way of his rebuttal witness statement has provided an adequate response to the challenge raised by the respondent in the refusal letter. I note that at the hearing Mrs Fell relied on the refusal letter but she did not seek to challenge the rebuttal witness statement."
4. The judge noted that the claimant was supported by his maternal cousin who has been granted refugee status on the basis of his ethnicity. She found his asylum account to be consistent with the background country materials and on that basis allowed the appeal.
5. The Secretary of State sought permission to appeal on the grounds that the judge had not adequately given reasons for her decision.
6. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Parkes on 27 May 2016.
7. Although Mr Hussain sought vigorously to defend this determination, I am satisfied that the judge did err in law. The Secretary of State set out a number of difficulties, as she saw them, with the claimant's evidence in the refusal letter. It was incumbent upon the judge to explain why she considered that the claimant's rebuttal statement had properly addressed the Secretary of State's concerns. It is not enough simply to say that the statement provided an adequate response.
8. Furthermore, since the Presenting Officer at the hearing relied on the refusal letter, it is not a proper reflection of her position to state that she did not seek to challenge the rebuttal witness statement.
9. The judge erred in law because she did not give adequate reasons to the Secretary of State explaining why she had lost the appeal.
Notice of Decision
10. The decision will have to be re-made by a judge other than Judge Ransley at Manchester.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 19 December 2016
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor