Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-DN-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/10221/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4 January 2017
(Extempore Judgment)
On 11 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER

Between

E G
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms C Fletcher, Counsel, instructed by Ahmed Rahman Carr solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr P Singh, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is the appeal by E G against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal promulgated on 31 August 2016. Mr G's appeal against the refusal of asylum was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge O'Brien. Permission to appeal that decision was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lambert on 28 September 2016 and thus the appeal came before me.

2. The essence of the grounds upon which permission was granted was that the judge had failed to engage with the medical report both physical and psychological by Dr Turvill in reaching his findings on credibility and risk on return. The judge in his determination refers to the appellant relying on the expert report in paragraph 51 of his determination having already found that the appellant lacked virtually complete credibility to the extent that the judge did not even accept that he was a Kurd. The medical report sets out the physical injuries which Dr Turvill finds to be consistent with the account given and the report also refers in paragraph 92 of the report that Mr G's fear of return was genuine, whether or not it was objectively justified. Dr Turvill finds that Mr G is suffering from PTSD and has moderate to severe depression overlapping with PTSD and that he requires treatment from his GP for that condition. It is not apparent from the decision that the judge took account of the psychological elements of the medical report in assessing the appellant's account and nor is it apparent that the judge took account of the doctor's view that some of the injuries were highly consistent with the account of having been tortured.

3. For these reasons I am satisfied that the judge has failed to have adequate regard to the medical evidence in reaching his findings and there is therefore a material error of law such that the decision is set aside to be remade. I canvassed with both parties whether I should remake the decision myself or whether it should be remitted to the First-tier for a further decision to be taken with no findings preserved. Both parties were content to leave this decision to me and on the basis that the psychological issues may impact on the credibility findings regarding the appellant's claim, this is a case where all the findings should be set aside and the matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision to be taken. I therefore remit it.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Signed Date 10th January 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Coker