Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-KEW-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/23510/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4th August 2016
On 6th September 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD

Between

MR NAQIBULLAH SARDAR
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No representative
For the Respondent: Mr L Tarlow, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Afghanistan whose appeal to be in need of international protection was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Raymond in a decision promulgated on 8th December 2015.
2. Grounds of application were lodged principally on the basis that the judge had erred in his approach to the credibility of the Appellant. He had re-visited the asylum claim of the Appellant from 2008 without taking into account his PTSD and depression diagnosis. Furthermore the judge had made an irrational assessment of the medical evidence and the particular conclusions in paragraph 252 by the judge were wrong.
3. First-tier Tribunal Judge Parkes found that the grounds disclosed no arguable errors of law and permission to appeal was refused. On renewal to the Upper Tribunal permission was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Allen on the basis of what was said in the grounds and also because it was a matter of concern that although the appeal was heard in May 2015 the decision was not promulgated until December 2015. Thus the matter came before me on the above date.
4. Notice of Hearing was duly sent to the Appellant and his solicitors although by letter dated 29th July 2016 the solicitors indicated they were withdrawing representation as they were without instructions.
5. When the case called on 4th August the Appellant did not appear and there was no appearance by any solicitor or anyone else on his behalf. Given that notice of the hearing appeared to have been properly served I decided to proceed with the hearing. For the Home Office Mr Tarlow said that the judge had dealt with the medical evidence as set out in paragraph 18 of his decision. Reading the decision as a whole there was nothing materially wrong with it. It should be left standing.
6. I reserved my decision.
Conclusions
7. I agree with Upper Tribunal Judge Allen that it is a matter of concern that it took the judge nearly seven months to promulgate his decision. While it can be said that the decision is unnecessarily lengthy there is nothing in it to suggest that the mere delay in promulgation had any consequence which disadvantaged the Appellant.
8. Contrary to the grounds the judge dealt very thoroughly with the medical evidence; in particular see the findings at paragraph 253 where he acknowledged that Dr Walsh concluded the Appellant was suffering from PTSD and severe depression. The judge concluded that both the Appellant and his brother were not credible and honest witnesses in the appeal - see paragraph 242. Numerous reasons are given for such a finding.
9. In my view the judge's findings are clear, cogent and by definition go a long way from being anything approaching perverse or irrational.
10. It follows that there is no material error of law in this decision which must stand.

Notice of Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve a making of an error on a point of law.
I do not set aside the decision.
I cannot see there is any need for an anonymity direction.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge J G Macdonald