Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/02438/2013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Stoke
Decision promulgated
on 26 August 2016
On 30 August 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANSON

Between

AB
(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Marcus instructed by Paragon Law
For the Respondent: Mr Bates Home Office Presenting Officer.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. In a decision dated 13 October 2015 Upper Tribunal Judge Plimmer found that the First-tier had made an error law material to the decision to dismiss the appeal against the respondent's refusal to revoke a deportation order and refusal of the appellants claim for asylum or for a grant of leave on human rights grounds.
2. Directions were given for a re-hearing of the merits of the appeal before the Upper Tribunal which included a direction for the respondent to file and serve an updated position and any additional evidence in light of the First-tier's unappealed finding that the appellant was born in Sierra Leonne. No further evidence has been provided.
Discussion
3. As a result of Judge Plimmer being unwell a judicial transfer order has been made and the matter comes before me today for a resumed substantive heading.
4. Judge Plimmer identified in her error of law decision that the First-tier panel were correct to refer to the cases of MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 298 and ST (Ethnic Eritrean-nationality-return) Ethiopia CG [2011] UKUT 00252 but that they had failed to make a finding on the essential issue of whether the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the requisite documents to enable him to return to Sierra Leone.
5. It is not disputed that the appellant has attended the Sierra Leone Embassy in the United Kingdom on seven occasions without success. The appellant has been interviewed by the Sierra Leone authorities in the United Kingdom but not recognised as a citizen. It was recorded by the Panel [16] that the appellant's evidence was that the Sierra Leone authorities had asked for a birth certificate but that he did not have one and that on the second occasion the official was not happy with him and shouted at him.
6. It was accepted by Mr Bates that the appellant has taken all reasonable practical steps to seek to obtain the documents required to enable him to return to Sierra Leone.
7. The second element is the need to consider whether it would be a breach of the Refugee Convention if the appellant ended up in Sierra Leone when it had refused to accept him as a citizen. It was accepted in ST that the denial of a right to return is very likely to constitute persecution in very many cases.
8. In this case I accept there has been a denial of the right to return. Mr Marcus outline the case in relation to why on the facts the appellant is entitled to be recognised as a refugee, which is a fact sensitive assessment.
9. Mr Bates did not concede the point but accepted that on the facts taken as a whole the appellant was entitled to be recognised as a refugee. The expert evidence speaks of discrimination against the Fula, the appellant's ethic group, in Sierra Leone. The appellant is unable to move his life forward in light of the refusal of the Sierra Leone authorities and suffers from mental health problems. The authorities in Sierra Leone mistrust the Fula from the region the appellant originates from and act accordingly.
10. I find it made out on the facts that the appellant faces a real risk of treatment sufficient to amount to persecution as a result of the actions of the Sierra Leone authorities in refusing to recognise him as a citizen of that country, effectively making him stateless, and the real risk of persecution if he ended up in Sierra Leone when it had refused to recognise him as a citizen, as per the guidance in the case law referred to above.
Decision
11. The First-tier Tribunal Judge has been found to have materially erred in law and that decision set aside. I remake the decision as follows. This appeal is allowed.
Anonymity.
12. I continue the anonymity order pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

Signed??????????????????.
Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson

Dated the 26 August 2016