PA/00929/2018

  • 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/00929/2018


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11th April 2019
On 30th April 2019



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR


Between

Umaeaswary [A]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Allen of Counsel, instructed by Krisinth Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms Jones, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
This is the appellant's appeal against the decision of Judge Hussain made following a hearing at Hatton Cross on 19th October 2018.
The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka born on [~] 1976. She has a complex immigration history but suffice it to say that she applied for asylum in the UK and was refused on 4th January 2018.
The judge did not accept that she would be at risk on return to Sri Lanka and dismissed the appeal. In doing so, he took into account medical evidence, including a report by a Dr Goldwyn. The judge said that the medical report stated that the appellant's injuries and scars were consistent with her account.
The appellant sought permission to appeal, primarily on the grounds that the judge had materially erred in his assessment of the medical evidence concerning the appellant's scarring. He stated twice that the expert report assesses that the scarring was consistent with the appellant's claims, which is incorrect. In fact, Dr Goldwyn identifies a number of scars as being typical of cigarette burns, highly consistent with further cigarette burns and concludes that her scarring and mental state together were diagnostic of the torture events claimed.
Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Kelly on 29th January 2019.
At the hearing before me Ms Jones for the Secretary of State accepted that the decision could not stand.
The decision is set aside. The judge erred in law. He did not accurately characterise the medical report at paragraph 52 of the determination, and a failure to assess the evidence is an error of law. The decision will have to be remade by a judge other than Judge Hussain. It should be relisted at Hatton Cross with a Tamil interpreter at the next available date.

No anonymity direction is made.


Signed Date 19 April 2019


Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor