Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12467/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 20 October 2016
On 6 December 2016
Prepared 20 October 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVEY

Between

Thilna [W]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr C Mannan, Counsel instructed by Linga & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr P Armstrong, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant, a national of Sri Lanka, date of birth 23 June 1983, appealed against the Respondent's decision dated 14 September 2015, refusing leave to remain within the United Kingdom based upon his fear of return to Sri Lanka. The appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Lucas who, on 14 April 2016, dismissed the appeal making a series of adverse credibility findings against the Appellant. Permission to appeal was given, on 7 September 2016, and the Respondent made a Rule 24 response, on 19 September 2016, supporting the judge's decision.
2. With the benefit of reflection the Respondent accepts that there is or appears to be a measure of predetermination by the judge, driven by the appalling immigration history that the Appellant e and the judge took the view from the outset that the Appellant was effectively an economic migrant who did not wish to return to his home country and was prepared to tell any untruths in order to resist removal.
3. The judge had the benefit of hearing the Appellant's evidence and forming a view about the evidence and its weight which of course is principally his responsibility. The judge nevertheless was obviously, in the context of the familiar case law which includes Mibanga [2005] [EWCA] Civ 367 required to look at the evidence as a whole and in the round. The way in which the decision has been written strongly suggests that was not the exercise which was carried out although I have to say looking at the papers I can well see why the judge would have formed the view that he did of the Appellant's redibility and the reliability of his account.
4. Be that as it may it is trite law that a party to proceedings is entitled to at least have the appearance of a fair hearing and a balanced view of the evidence looked at in the round as a whole. It is the acceptance by Mr Armstrong on behalf of the Respondent persuades me that this is a case where were the matter to be re-made there is at least the possibility of a different view being taken of the evidence as a whole in terms of not only the Appellant's credibility but also the assessment of risk on return.
5. For that reason I am satisfied there are two material errors of law by the judge, first in the sense of not looking at the evidence in the round and secondly in the assessment, that seems to have been made, of the Article 8 case on which I have heard no argument.
6. The original Tribunal's decision cannot stand. The matter will have to be re-made in the First-tier Tribunal.
Directions
Listed for two hours.
Not before First-tier Tribunal Judge Lucas.
No findings of fact to stand.
Any further documentation relied upon in support of the appeal to be served not less than fourteen working days before any listing the case.
A Tamil interpreter is required.

NOTICE OF DECISION
The appeal is allowed to the limited extent that the appeal is returned to the First-tier Tribunal to be remade.
No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 18 December 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey