Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00549/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Glasgow
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 9 February 2017
On 20th February 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MURRAY

Between

Bahzad yasin hamaxan
(anonymity direction not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Forrest, Counsel for McGlashan MacKay Solicitors, Glasgow
For the Respondent: Mr Matthews, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq born on 14 December 1990. He appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 4 January 2016 refusing his asylum claim, his claim on humanitarian protection grounds and his human rights claim. His appeal was heard by Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal Handley on 29 November 2016 who dismissed the appeal on all grounds in a decision promulgated on 13 December 2016.
2. An application for permission to appeal was made and permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal Bennett on 5 January 2017. The permission states that it is arguable that the Judge insufficiently considered the appellant's ability to relocate, having regard to paragraph 15 onwards in AA (Iraq) [2015] UKUT544(IAC).
3. There is a Rule 24 response dated 2 February 2017 which states that at paragraph 49 of the Judge's decision he referred to the said case of AA (Iraq) and considered how the appellant would be able to obtain the necessary documentation for his return to Iraq. The response states that the asylum decision letter supports the Judge's assertion that the appellant can be safely returned to Iraq and the respondent's letter identified the way in which he can be returned by a laissez passer obtained from the Iraqi Embassy in London. The respondent's letter also considers that the appellant can have his father and step-mother send his ID card to him or he could acquire one via the Iraqi Embassy. It states that the Judge's findings on credibility are not subject to challenge and that the decision is sustainable.
The Hearing
4. I asked the parties if there was anything that could be agreed between them and the Presenting Officer submitted that the First-Tier Judge in this case made no reference to the feasibility of the appellant's relocation to another area of Iraq. He submitted that because of this the decision cannot stand although the factual findings in the decision should stand.
5. Counsel for the appellant was in agreement with this.
6. It was decided that because the factual findings in the decision can stand the case should be remitted back to First-Tier Tribunal Judge Handley to consider the issue of internal relocation again.

Notice of Decision
7. There is a material error of law in the Judge's decision but only relating to the feasibility of relocation of this appellant to the IKR in Iraq. His factual findings can stand and I am remitting this claim back to First-Tier Immigration Judge Handley for him to consider the issue of internal relocation of the appellant in Iraq.
8. Anonymity has not been directed.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Murray