Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/50633/2021
(UI-2021-001328) [IA/01583/2021]

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 27 May 2022
On the 12 July 2022

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE REEDS

Between

K O
(AnonYmity DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Holmes, Counsel instructed on behalf of the appellant

For the Respondent: Ms Zoe Young, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Anonymity :
Rule 14: The Tribunal Procedure(Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008:
Anonymity is granted because the facts of the appeal involve a protection claim. and 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. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

DECISION MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 40 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE ( UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “FtTJ”) who dismissed the appellant’s protection and human rights appeal in a decision promulgated on the 16 August 2021.
2. The appeal came before the FtTJ on 12 August 2021. In a decision promulgated on 16 August 2021, the FtTJ dismissed the appeal on asylum grounds and on human rights grounds. The FtTJ set out his factual findings at and his analysis of the claim at paragraphs [20]-[24]. Whilst the FtTJ accepted that the appellant’s account of F’s father ultimately rejecting the proposed marriage of his daughter to the appellant as one that was consistent with background country information given their ethnic, cultural, and religious differences, he did not accept the rest of his claim. The FtTJ concluded that the appellant was not at real risk of suffering harm on return to Iraq, whether that be for the purposes of the Refugee Convention, Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention, or otherwise.
3. Permission to appeal that decision was sought and on 6 October 2021 permission was granted by FtTJ Gibbs
4. At the outset of the hearing, Ms Young on behalf of the respondent conceded that the decision of the FtTJ involved the making of errors of law as set out in the appellant’s grounds and invited the tribunal to remit the appeal to the FtT for a fresh hearing. Both advocates gave consent for a decision to be made under Rule 40.
5. The parties are in agreement that focus of the Judge on the fact of the proposal demonstrated a material misunderstanding of the core of the Appellant’s account, and wrongly caused the Judge to question the “plausibility of this aspect of the Appellant’s claim” and that the basis upon which the warrant was issued was similarly misunderstood.
6. Both parties agree that the points set out in the grounds, taken individually or cumulatively, establish arguable legal errors in the approach of the FtTJ.
7. In terms of remaking the decision, it is evident that both parties agree that the credibility findings are flawed so that none of the findings of fact are sustainable. Accordingly I am satisfied that it would in all circumstances be appropriate to set aside the decision in its entirety and for it to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard fresh.
8. Rule 40 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) rules 2008 allows the Upper Tribunal to give a decision orally at a hearing. Rule 40 (3) states that the Upper Tribunal must provide written reasons with a decision notice to each party as soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision which finally disposes of all issues in the proceedings. Rule 40 (3) provides exceptions to the rule if the decision is made with the consent of the parties, or the parties have consented to the Upper Tribunal not giving written reasons. In this case the parties consented to a decision without reasons pursuant to Rule 40(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I am satisfied that the parties have given such consent at the hearing.
Decision
9. The decision of the First.-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law; the decision is set aside and shall be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh.
10. Rule 14: 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. 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 Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds
Dated : 27/5/ 2022