Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00202/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 8 February 2017
On 20 February 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MURRAY

Between

MS N B
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Crawford, Brown & Co Solicitors, Glasgow
For the Respondent: Ms O'Brien, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Algeria born on 1 February 1984. She appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 18 December 2015 refusing her application for asylum, for humanitarian protection and on human rights grounds. Her appeal was heard by Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal Handley on 31 August 2016.
2. An application for permission to appeal was made and permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal Adio on 15 December 2016. The permission states that the Judge arguably erred in law in treating Dr Seddon's, the expert's, report with caution. It was also found to be arguable that the Judge did not deal with or consider the independent psychological report by Dr Tagg, particularly when he states that he had no evidence to suggest that the appellant had any significant health issues. The permission states that the Judge appears to have only concentrated on issues which the Tribunal did not accept, in the Country Guidance case of OO (Algeria) [2016] UKUT 0065.
3. There is a Rule 24 response on file which states that the Judge considered the factual matrix of the case and arrived at conclusions open to him, giving sufficient reasons for dismissing the appeal. The response states that the Judge considered Dr Seddon's report in context and referred to comments made with respect to the expert in the said case of OO. It goes on to state however that it is apparent that there is no clear reference to the report prepared by Dr Tagg (the independent psychological report referred to in the permission). The response states however, that it is not at all clear that the contents of this report could have materially altered the judge's decision to dismiss the appeal.
The Hearing
4. I asked both parties if there can be any agreement between them and the Presenting Officer submitted that it is clear that Dr Tagg's medical evidence has not been considered by the Judge. He submitted that had the Judge considered this it could have affected his credibility findings. He submitted that this is an error of law.
5. The appellant's representative stated that she agrees with this and that Dr Tagg's report is important and material. She submitted that this appellant's health could affect internal relocation for this appellant.
Decision and Reasons
6. There is a material error of law in this Judge's decision as the psychological report was not considered by the First-Tier Judge. It is not referred to at all in the decision. In the decision the Judge states that he had no evidence before him to suggest that the appellant has any significant health issues. This is an error.
7. Although the Judge referred to Dr Seddon's report he states in the decision that he treated this report with caution. The Judge was obliged to accept the contents of the report and it is not clear whether the Judge took into account the aspects of Dr Seddon's expert report mentioned in the said case of OO (Algeria) which the Tribunal found to be credible.
8. As there is a material error of law in the First-Tier Tribunal's decision I am setting it aside.
9. No findings of the First-Tier Tribunal can stand. Under Section 12(2)(b)(i) of the 2007 Act and Practice Statement 7.2 the nature and extent of judicial fact-finding necessary for the decision to be re-made is such that it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-Tier Tribunal. The members of the First-Tier Tribunal chosen to reconsider the case are not to include Judge Handley.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Murray