AA/11549/2014

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 17 Oct 2016
• Promulgation date: 20 Oct 2016
• Publication date: 3 Apr 2020
• Last updated on: 3 Apr 2020

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: aa/11549/2014


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at North Shields
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 17 October 2016
On 20 October 2016


Before


UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RINTOUL

Between

[A E E]
Appellant

and

secretary of state for the home department
Claimants

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms C Soltani, Solicitor, Iris Solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, Presenting Officer


DECISION ON ERROR OF LAW AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Holmes, promulgated on 24 July 2015, dismissing his appeal against the decision of the respondent made on 8 December 2014 to refuse to revoke a deportation order against him.
2. The appellant's case is that he is at risk on return to Nigeria on account of his sexuality as a gay or bisexual man. The respondent did not accept that he is gay or bisexual, and refused his claim for asylum.
3. It is part of his case that the appellant has had a sexual relationship with Mr [A C] who has also sought asylum in the United Kingdom on account of his sexuality. His appeal was heard at North Shields on 15 January 2015 before First-tier Tribunal Judge Fisher. The appellant gave evidence in that appeal (DA/01830/2014), and was not believed; nor was Mr [C].
4. When this appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal, a copy of the decision in Mr [C]'s appeal was provided to the judge and he took it into account in reaching his decision - see paragraphs [22 i)], [65] - [75] which, the parties agree, formed a significant part of the reasons that the judge in this appeal made credibility findings against the appellant, rejecting also the evidence of Mr [C], although the latter did not give oral evidence before him.
5. Since the decision in this case was promulgated, Mr [C]'s appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been heard, and in a decision of Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson promulgated on 14 April 2016, Judge Fisher's decision was set aside and the appeal was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. None of the findings of fact were preserved.
6. When this appeal came before me, both representatives agreed that as a result of this development, the First-tier Tribunal's credibility findings were, as the grounds of appeal submitted, undermined by reliance on findings now quashed, and thus involved the making of an error of law. I am satisfied that that is so, and thus that the decision must be set aside.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law, and I set it aside.
2. I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing on all issues. The hearing must not be before First-tier Tribunal Judge Holmes or Judge Fisher.


Signed Date: 17 October 2016


Upper Tribunal Judge Rintoul