Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01641/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at City Centre Tower, Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4th April 2018
On 2nd May 2018

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

q a
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs A Imamovic, Counsel instructed by The Coventry Law Centre
For the Respondent: Mrs M Aboni, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Afghanistan born on 1st January 2002. He entered the UK illegally on 17th July 2015 and claimed asylum on 12th August 2015. That application was refused for the reasons given in an Asylum Decision dated 3rd February 2016. The Appellant appealed and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Asjad (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 22nd May 2017. She decided to dismiss the appeal for the reasons given in her Decision dated 6th June 2017. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 22nd September 2017 such leave was granted.
Error of Law
2. I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.
3. The Judge dismissed the appeal mainly because she found the Appellant to be lacking in credibility and therefore did not accept his account of events in Afghanistan. She described his claim as fabricated. In her analysis of the Appellant's evidence, she identified various inconsistencies and implausibilities.
4. At the hearing before me, Mrs Imamovic argued that the Judge had erred in law in this respect by failing to take into account the age of the Appellant when considering his credibility.
5. In response, Mrs Aboni argued that the Judge had made no such material error of law. She had directed herself appropriately and had given adequate reasons for her findings. It had been open to the Judge to find various inconsistencies and implausibilities in the evidence of the Appellant.
6. I find a material error of law in the decision of the Judge which as a consequence I set aside. The Appellant was 13 years of age when he first arrived in the UK and interviewed in connection with his application for asylum. He was still only 15 years of age when he gave evidence to the Judge at the hearing before her. The Judge acknowledged the age of the Appellant in paragraph 4 of her Decision. However, thereafter the Judge did not refer to the Appellant's age again. The Appellant was a vulnerable witness at all material times, but the Judge did not refer to this vulnerability nor the Presidential Guidance relating to vulnerable witnesses in her Decision, and did not apply the Guidance when considering the issue of credibility. This amounts to a material error of law.

Notice of 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 that decision.

The decision in the appeal will be remade in the First-tier Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 7.2(b) of the Practice Statements as all judicial fact-finding remains to be done.

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal made an order for anonymity which I continue owing to the age of the Appellant.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Signed Date 30th April 2018

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton