Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00993/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Newport (Columbus House)
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6 December 2016
On 12 December 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and

M A I A
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr I Richards, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: Mr M McGarvey of McGarvey Immigration Asylum Practitioners Ltd

DECISION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Respondent (MAIA). This direction applies to both the appellant and to the respondent and a failure to comply with this direction could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings.
2. Although this is an appeal by the Secretary of State against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, for convenience I will refer to the parties as they appeared before the First-tier Tribunal.
3. The appellant is a citizen of Sudan who was born on 6 June 1993. He entered the United Kingdom on 22 June 2015 and claimed asylum. The basis of his claim was that he was a member of the Zhehawa Tribe from Darfur in Sudan and was, as a result, at risk on return to Sudan.
4. On 12 August 2015, the Secretary of State refused the appellant's international protection claim.
5. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. In a determination promulgated on 14 March 2016, Judge Powell allowed the appellant's appeal on asylum grounds. The judge accepted that the appellant was from a non-Arab Darfurian tribe, namely the Zhehawa and that on the basis of AA (non-Arab Darfuris relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 0056 his claim succeeded.
6. The Secretary of State sought, and was granted, permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The Secretary of State did not challenge any of the judge's findings in respect of the substance of the appellant's claim and which led him to allow the appeal. Instead, the Secretary of State relied upon the fact that the Presenting Officer at the hearing had raised the issue as to whether the individual (claiming to be the appellant) in the hearing room was in fact the person who had sought asylum and to whom the appeal related.
7. The appeal initially came before me on 19 July 2016.
8. In a decision dated 20 July 2016, I concluded that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law in allowing the appellant's appeal on asylum grounds on the basis that the judge had wrongly failed to deal with the identity issue raised at the hearing. The appeal could only succeed if the appellant was who he claimed to be.
9. I set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision and directed that it be relisted for a resumed hearing in order that the Upper Tribunal could remake the decision.
10. It was accepted that the only issue, at that resumed hearing, would be the identity of the appellant. It was accepted that if the individual pursuing the appeal was, indeed, the individual who claimed asylum initially, then his appeal should be allowed on asylum grounds. It was acknowledged that the Secretary of State had, on record, the fingerprints of the individual who applied for asylum. It was common ground that it would be sensible for the Secretary of State to obtain a report comparing the fingerprints of the asylum seeker and those of the individual pursuing the appeal.
11. Subsequently, the two sets of fingerprints were examined and Mr Richards, at the resumed hearing, informed me that they were a match. He accepted that the individual pursuing the appeal was the asylum seeker and that, therefore, his identity was established and his appeal should be allowed on asylum grounds.
Decision
12. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow the appellant's appeal involved the making of an error of law. That decision was set aside for the reasons set out in my decision dated 20 July 2016.
13. For the above reasons, I remake the decision allowing the appellant's appeal on asylum grounds.

Signed

A Grubb
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Date