PA/01270/2015

  • 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/01270/2015


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 18 July 2016
On 10 August 2016



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE STOREY


Between

[r m]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADe)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms C Robinson of Counsel instructed by J D Spicer Zeb Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr T Wilding, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant is a citizen of Albania. In a Rule 24 response the respondent stated that she did not oppose the appellant's application as it appears the First-tier Tribunal Judge (Judge Quinn) did not have regard to the medical evidence. It is unnecessary to say anything other than that I agree with the parties that the judge materially erred in law. The judge has not engaged adequately or at all with the medical evidence. Paragraphs 66-69 are at best the beginning of an explanation for why the judge did not find the medical evidence to carry any weight. No reasons are given for considering that Dr Harari's report was unreliable. Although the judge states at paragraph 38 that account has been taken of age and vulnerability, his subsequent remarks in this and succeeding paragraphs do not inspire confidence that account was in fact taken or that the judge bore in mind the relevance to the assessment of the credibility of minors the criteria set out in paragraph 351 of the Immigration Rules. It may be that at a fresh hearing a proper assessment of the medical evidence will reach a similar view, but that is not something I can prejudge. The appellant is now 18 but the assessment made of his claim historically has happened when he was a minor, as obviously have the events he recounted, so the age criterion continues to be of relevance in that context.

2. For the above reasons the FtT judge materially erred in law and its decision is set aside. Pursuant to the Senior President's Practice Statement I remit this case to the First-tier Tribunal not to be before Judge Quinn.



Signed Date: 8 August 2016


Dr H H Storey
Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal