Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-BH-PMP-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/13082/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bennett House, Stoke
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 16th January 2017
On 1st February 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GARRATT

Between

SM
(anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr N Paramjorthy of Counsel instructed by S Satha & Co
For the Respondent: Mr C Bates, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS

1. An anonymity direction was made by the First-tier Tribunal. I continue that direction as follows:
DIRECTION REGARDING ANONYMITY - RULE 14 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify the original appellant. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to contempt of court proceedings.
Background
2. On 9th November 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal E B Grant gave permission to the appellant to appeal against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Broe who dismissed the appeal on all grounds against the decision of the respondent to refuse asylum, humanitarian and human rights protection to the appellant, an adult citizen of Sri Lanka.
3. Judge Grant noted that the grounds alleged that the First-tier Judge had erred by failing to make findings on evidence before the Tribunal including a detailed letter from the appellant's uncle who had secured his release from detention and from the appellant's mother. It was also alleged that the judge had failed to understand the evidence placed before the Tribunal, gave inadequate reasons for rejecting medical evidence and failed to make findings about a second claimed detention. Further it was alleged that the judge had failed to properly assess risk on return having regard to the imprisonment of the appellant's uncle. Judge Grant thought all these grounds were arguable.
4. The respondent submitted a response under Rule 24 on 30th November 2016 suggesting that the First-tier Judge had directed himself appropriately and given adequate reasons for rejecting certain evidence. However, Mr Bates conceded that the decision did not show that the judge had regard to the letters from the appellant's uncle and mother or that he had made findings in respect of the claimed detentions of the appellant and his uncle. He further conceded that that these were errors on material matters.
Error on a Point of Law
5. Having regard to the concessions made by Mr Bates and after I had considered the matter for a few moments, I announced that I was satisfied that the decision showed errors on points of law such that the decision should be set aside and heard afresh by the First-tier Tribunal.
6. I reached the above conclusion noting that, in the findings of the First-tier Judge from paragraph 34 onwards of the decision, the judge reaches no conclusions about the claimed periods of detention for the appellant and his uncle nor is there any mention of the correspondence from the appellant's uncle and mother. This is despite reaching the negative credibility finding in paragraph 45. As to the medical evidence relating to scarring, the judge also failed to take into consideration that the report by Mr Izquierdo-Martin specifically rejected possible alternatives to the scarring found to be "typical". Finally, in considering risk on return, the judge appears to have overlooked the respondent's acknowledgment that the appellant had an uncle who had been sentenced to 200 years' imprisonment for his involvement in a bombing when considering the risk factors set out in GJ and Others (Post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC).
7. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal therefore shows material errors on points of law and is set aside. The appeal is to be heard afresh before the First-tier Tribunal where the evidence will be heard again. On this basis the remittal to the First-tier Tribunal accords with the provisions of paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Statement for the First-tier and Upper Tribunal by the Senior President of Tribunals dated 25th September 2012.
DIRECTIONS
8. The re-hearing of the appeal will take place at the Birmingham Hearing Centre.
9. The hearing should not take place before Judge Broe.
10. A Tamil interpreter will be required for the re-hearing and the time estimate for that hearing is three hours.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Garratt