Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-KEW-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/13296/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 20 October 2016
On 21 November 2016
Determination given orally at the hearing

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY

Between

IY
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Rachel Francis, Wilson Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Mr P Naith, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS
1. The appellant is a Palestinian born on 6 December 1991. He appeals with permission given in the Upper Tribunal by Upper Tribunal Judge McWilliam against a decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Traynor who in a determination promulgated on 20 June 2016 dismissed the appellant's appeal against the refusal of asylum.
2. In brief, the appellant set out his claim as being that he had worked for the Palestine Liberation Army and effectively had been involved in spying for them against Hezbollah and Al Assir who is the leader of an extremist Islamic group. The judge considered the evidence and found that the appellant was not credible. He made, I consider, two material errors of law in his decision. Firstly, he ignored evidence given in a statement by NM who said that the appellant had worked for his former boss who is the head of security nicknamed Silick. NM gave details of the appellant's activities but that evidence was not considered by the judge nor was evidence given in a statement by the appellant's mother relating to a visit by the Lebanese authorities to the family home.
3. Secondly, and more importantly, the appellant's evidence was backed up by a expert report from Miss Sheri Laizer who is well-known as an expert in Middle Eastern matters. Her report is detailed and it is notable in that it deals specifically with the appellant's statements and indeed with allegations made in the letter of refusal. However, the judge really did not deal with that report. His only reference to it is at paragraph 72 of the determination. He does not give any reasons for rejecting what is set out in the report. That, I consider, is a further and indeed an important material error of law in this case. I therefore set aside the decision of the First-tier Judge.
4. This is a matter in which the evidence has to be considered in great detail and further evidence heard from the appellant and it is therefore appropriate that I remit this appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a hearing afresh on all issues.

Directions
1. The appeal is remitted to a hearing in the First-tier at Taylor House to be heard afresh on all issues.
2. An Arabic interpreter is required.
3. Time estimate: three hours.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Signed Date: 1 November 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge McGeachy