AA/11405/2015

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/11405/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at The Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast
On 11 November 2016
Decision & Reasons promulgated
On 15 November 2016



Before

The President, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey


Between

SHARIF MOHAMUD ABDIRAHAM
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation
Appellant: Mr S McTaggart, of Counsel, instructed by RP Crawford & Co Solicitors
Respondent: Mr M Matthews, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION
Introduction
1. The First tier Tribunal ("FtT") dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the "Secretary of State"), refusing the Appellant's application for asylum. Permission to appeal was granted in the following terms:
"In his grounds of appeal, the Appellant asserts that ? the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for his decision ? The Appellant is entitled to know what parts of his account are rejected or accepted ?
I find arguable merit in the grounds ? In particular I think there is a lack of adequate reasoning why the Appellant's evidence was rejected."
2. In its decision, the FtT, inter alia, rehearsed the gravamen of the asylum case made by the Appellant when interviewed and summarised his evidence. In the key section of its decision, the Tribunal reproduced three lengthy paragraphs from the decision letter. These passages focus on certain aspects of the Appellant's account, analyse them and reject them as not worthy of belief. The Judge then stated:
"I am not persuaded these reasons were engaged with in evidence and find that they have not been gainsaid. In the circumstances, I find them a persuasive analysis of the Appellant's evidence."
3. I conclude that there are two identifiable and inter-related shortcomings in the decision of the FtT. First, there was a failure to make findings in respect of several key elements of the Appellant's case. Second, consequential upon this failure, the decision is inadequately reasoned. See MK (Duty to give reasons) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 641 (IAC).

ORDER
4. The decision of the FtT is vitiated by material error of law and is hereby set aside. I remit the appeal to a differently constituted FtT for rehearing and fresh decision.






THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY
PRESIDENT OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Date: 11 November 2016