AA/12132/2015

  • 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/12132/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Glasgow
Determination issued
on 20 December 2016
on 21 December 2016



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN


Between

M M A AHTAIBA
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


For the Appellant: Miss L Irvine, Advocate, instructed by Katani & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs M O'Brien, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against a determination by First-tier Tribunal Judge Handley, dismissing his appeal against refusal of recognition as a refugee from Libya.
2. The hearing took place on 31 August 2016. In his determination, dated 26 and promulgated on 28 September 2016, the judge applied AT and Others Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC).
3. FA (Libya: art 15(c)) Libya CG [2016] UKUT 00413 (IAC) was published on 20 September 2016, headnoted thus:

1. The question of whether a person is at art 15(c) risk in Libya should, until further Country Guidance, be determined on the basis of the individual evidence in the case.

2. This decision replaces AT and Others Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) in respect of assessment of the art 15(c) risk.
4. The appellant sought permission to appeal to the UT, on overlapping grounds headed as (1) error on the question of risk of serious harm in Libya (referring to FA and to background evidence); (2) irrational findings, or failure to take factors into account; (3) failure to take account of factors relevant to the best interests of the child; and (4) other failures in relation to article 8 ECHR.
5. Permission was granted by reference to an arguable error of relying on outdated country guidance.
6. The timing was unfortunate. It may be a counsel of perfection that judges should always be aware of up to date country guidance, even if a change comes between the hearing and the decision; but that is the assumption on which error of law must be decided.
7. The respondent conceded that there has been error of law. Representatives agreed that the appropriate outcome is as follows.
8. The decision of the FtT is set aside. It stands only as a record of what was said on that occasion. The nature of the case is such that it is appropriate in terms of section 12(2)(b)(i) of the 2007 Act and of Practice Statement 7.2 to remit the case to the FtT for fresh hearing.
9. The member(s) of the FtT chosen to consider the case or not to include Judge Handley.
10. No anonymity direction has been requested or made.




20 December 2016
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman