Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00841/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 31 October 2016
On 4 November 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
John FREEMAN

Between

[S I O]
appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
respondent

Representation:
For the appellant: Mr M Sihwa, solicitor, Duncan Lewis & Co
For the respondent: Mr Keith Norton

DECISION AND REASONS

This is the appeal of [SIO], who was born in Nigeria on 26 July 1995. She appeals against the decision of Judge Bernard Andonian, sitting at Taylor House on 6 July 2016, dismissing her asylum and human rights appeal.

2. The appellant came to this country on 10 September 2013, with a student visa valid until 29 October 2015; but on 3 September 2015 she claimed asylum. Her case was that she would face risk on return as a Lesbian. She said she had Lesbian feelings when she was 8, and she knew what they were called from the time she was 14. She claimed one actual relationship with a female British citizen called Jade, which had lasted from July 2015 until December that year or January 2016.

3. Her brothers Gabriel and Michael gave oral evidence in her support. The judge did deal with their evidence at paragraph 10, but on the basis that they said no more than might be expected of them as her brothers.

4. At paragraph 13 the judge noted that the appellant had claimed that she had told her parents in Nigeria that she was a Lesbian. Her mother had supported her all along. Her father had disapproved, but was coming round. At paragraph 19 the judge made a clear finding that the parents knew about her appeal, and that she was a Lesbian and could have provided statements in support of her, but did not.

5. The judge made a number of other negative credibility findings against the appellant, including the fact that there was no signed statement or oral evidence from Jade, which may well have been justified; but it is accepted that his finding at paragraph 19 was wrong. Both parents had provided a statement in support of the appellant, making it clear that she had told them about her orientation. Her father confirmed that he had come round to supporting her, and her mother said that she had even met Jade on her visit to this country in December 2015.

6. Mr Sihwa, who appeared for the appellant before me as before the judge, has assured me that he did draw those dates to the judge's attention in the course of his closing submissions. The judge does not record those, and there is no legible note of them in the judge's record of proceedings or in the presenting officer's note, but that assurance is of course accepted, and it follows, despite the other findings of fact against the appellant, that the judge's point about the lack of statements from the appellant's parents involved a material error of law, and the result is that the decision will have to be re-made.

Appeal allowed: decision to be re-made
Fresh hearing in First-tier Tribunal, not before Judge Andonian

(a judge of the Upper Tribunal)