PA/00914/2016

  • Case title:  
  • Appellant name:
  • Status of case: Unreported
  • Hearing date:
  • Promulgation date:
  • Publication date:
  • Last updated on:
  • Country:
  • Judges:

The decision



Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: pA/00914/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24 April 2017
On 25 April 2017


Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SAFFER

Between

NM
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Tettey of Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr Diwyncz a Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Background

1. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/269) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify NK or any of her family members. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to Contempt of Court proceedings. I do so in order to preserve the anonymity of NK whose asylum and ancillary protection claim, for reasons that will become clear, remains outstanding.

2. The Respondent refused NK’s application for asylum or ancillary protection on 15 January 2016. Her appeal against this was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Robson (“the Judge”) following a hearing on 16 November 2016.

The grant of permission

3. First-tier Tribunal Judge Hodgkinson granted permission to appeal (16 February 2017) on the basis that it is arguable that there were contradictory findings regarding whether an incident where she claimed to have been pulled off a bus due to her child’s racial origin could well have occurred [73] or was not reasonably likely to have happened [78].

Respondent’s position

4. It was conceded by Mr Diwyncz that there was a material error of law as postulated and that the decision could not stand.

Discussion

5. Given the concession made by the Respondent I am satisfied that a material error of law occurred. In addition, I agree with both representatives that it is appropriate to remit the matter de novo as the error goes beyond that contained within the Presidential Guidance for retention in the Upper Tribunal.

Decision:

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I set aside the decision.

I remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing, not before Judge Robson.



Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Saffer
24 April 2017