Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-DN-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01964/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford UT
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 3 February 2017
On 14 February 2017

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal judge ROBERTS

Between

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant

and

Mr D.M.M.
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mrs Pettersen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the Respondent: In person, not represented

Anonymity

Rule 14: The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
An anonymity direction was made by the First-tier Tribunal. As a protection claim, it is appropriate to continue that direction.

DECISION AND REASONS
1. These proceedings concern D.M.M. born 1st January 1996. He claims to be a national of Iran but his nationality is disputed.
2. For the sake of clarity throughout this decision I shall refer to D.M.M. as "the Appellant" and to the Secretary of State for the Home Department as "the Respondent" which reflects their respective positions before the First-tier Tribunal.
Background
3. The Appellant's claim is that he entered the United Kingdom on 24th September 2015. It is not in dispute that he claimed asylum on that date and this application was subsequently refused by the Respondent.
4. The Appellant's asylum claim centres on an assertion that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran because of his imputed political opinion. He claimed that he had assisted the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). The Respondent disbelieved his claim on account of his disputed nationality.
5. Following the Respondent's refusal of his claim the Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Asjad). In a decision promulgated on 4th November 2016, the FtT Judge made findings comprehensively disbelieving the Appellant's claim to be an Iranian national.
6. The judge went on to say that even if she was wrong on that score, she did not accept the credibility of the Appellant's claim to be a member of PJAK. Therefore the Appellant was of no interest to the Iranian authorities [18].
7. Following paragraph [18] the judge set out a heading "Notice of Decision" under which there is the following sentence:
"The appeal on asylum grounds is allowed."
The decision is dated 1st November 2016 and it was promulgated on 4th November 2016.
8. Application for permission to appeal was submitted by the Respondent. The relevant parts of the Ground of Appeal say as follows:
"It is respectfully submitted that FTTJ Asjad has erred in recording allowed, when stating the notice of decision in the instant appeal.
As can be seen throughout the findings of the FTTJ he finds that no part of the appellant's case can be accepted, including his claim to be of Iranian Nationality. This is confirmed in paragraph 19 where FTTJ Asjad states "For the reasons given I refuse the Appellant's claim for asylum, humanitarian protection and article 2 and 3."
It is therefore asserted that the final outcome is recorded in error or in the alternative a perverse outcome given the findings as highlighted above."
9. Permission having been granted, the matter comes before me to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal Judge erred in law, to such an extent that it requires the decision to be set aside and remade.
UT Hearing
10. Mrs Pettersen appeared for the Respondent and the Appellant appeared in person. With the aid of Mr Zadeh the interpreter, the position was fully explained to the Appellant. Mrs Pettersen made submissions keeping to the grounds of the application and referred to the decision in Katsonga [2016] UKUT 228 (IAC).
11. The Appellant simply responded by saying that he now had further evidence that he wished to bring, which is essentially that he has now started attending a local Baptist church and is embracing Christianity.
Error of Law
12. I find I am satisfied that the decision of Judge Asjad contains a material error of law, as identified in the Respondent's grounds seeking permission.
13. It is quite clear from reading the decision that either the judge's decision is recorded in error or that the findings are perverse, given the final outcome. Whichever of those alternatives is the correct one however is not clear.
14. As matters have now gone so far as to come before this Tribunal, I see no alternative but to set aside the decision in its entirety. The decision will have to be remade. This is in accordance with the reported decision of Katsonga. The matter will now be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh decision to be remade.

Notice of Decision

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to that Tribunal (not Judge Asjad) for a rehearing and for a fresh decision to be made.

Signed C E Roberts Date 09 February 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Roberts