Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00822/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bennett House, Stoke-on-Trent
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 1st August 2016
On 15th August 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GARRATT

Between

[I S]
(ANONYMITY direction not made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs N Kham, Legal Representative
For the Respondent: Mr A McVeety, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND DIRECTIONS

1. Before the Upper Tribunal the Secretary of State becomes the appellant. However, for the avoidance of confusion and to be consistent, I shall refer to the parties as they were before the First-tier Tribunal.
Background
2. On 23 May 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Lever gave permission to the respondent to appeal against the decision of Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Majid in which he allowed the appeal against the decision of the respondent to refuse asylum, humanitarian and human rights protection to the appellant, a female citizen of Pakistan.
Error on a Point of Law
3. Judge Lever gave permission to the respondent stating that the grounds asserted that the Judge erred in imposing his own views in the case, failed to consider country material, did not engage with the refusal letter and failed to properly scrutinise the evidence. It was also unclear whether the appeal was allowed on asylum grounds or under the Immigration Rules.
4. Permission was granted because the grounds had merely indicated "a part of the problems and error that affect this decision which makes uncomfortable reading".
5. At the hearing before me both representatives agreed that the decision of Judge Majid was wholly inadequate as contended in the grounds and summarised in the permission. After considering the matter for a few moments I announced that I was satisfied that the decision contained significant errors of points of law and said that it should be set aside and submitted to the First-tier Tribunal for hearing afresh.
6. Apart from a summary of some of the evidence in the appellant's statement of 22 April 2016, the Judge fails to engage properly with either the claim made or the respondent's reasons for rejecting it. No cogent reasons are given for accepting the appellant's claims and the conclusions are based, at least in part, on the Judge's own views without reference to objective material. Conflicts of evidence highlighted in the refusal have not been considered at all leaving the respondent in ignorance of the actual reason for allowing the appeal.
7. The appeal must be heard afresh by the First-tier Tribunal. This fully accords with the Practice Statement of the Senior President of Tribunal of 25 September 2012 at Paragraph 7.2.
DIRECTIONS
8. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) sitting at Taylor House.
9. The remitted hearing should not be before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Majid.
10. The hearing shall take place on a date to be specified by the Resident Judge and in accordance with any further directions that may be given by the First-tier Tribunal for the hearing of the appeal.
11. An Urdu interpreter will be required for the hearing.
Anonymity
12. Anonymity was not requested before the Upper Tribunal nor was an anonymity direction made by the First-tier Tribunal.

Signed Date
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Garratt