PA/02447/2016

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 12 Apr 2017
• Promulgation date: 27 Apr 2017
• Publication date: 28 Jun 2022
• Last updated on: 28 Jun 2022

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02447/2016


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 12 April 2017
On 27 April 2017



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN


Between

[N L D]
(anonymity direction MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr H Sarwar,instructed by Biruntha Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Kotas (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is the appeal by [NLD] against the decision of the First-tier Judge who dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision refusing asylum on 22 February 2016. The appeal was dismissed and permission was subsequently granted, on a renewed application, by Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey with reference to documentation that it was said in the grounds had not been considered.
2. Today I have heard from Mr Sarwar on behalf of the appellant and Mr Kotas on behalf of the Secretary of State. Mr Kotas had not seen material documents which were attached to the skeleton argument at the First-tier hearing which are a screenshot of information relating to the Financial Crimes Investigation Department (FCID) which was a material issue before the judge and also newspaper articles. It is accepted on behalf of the respondent very clearly and helpfully by Mr Kotas, that the judge did not deal properly with this evidence. He does not appear to have appreciated the significance of the evidence or the extent of the evidence that was provided with regard to the FCID and in particular said nothing about the newspaper articles which are potentially corroborative of material aspects of Mr Don’s account.
3. So accordingly it is common ground that there are material errors of law in the judge’s decision and the matter will therefore have to be reheard and I have heard submissions from both representatives in relation to that. I think Mr Kotas is essentially neutral and Mr Sarwar argues that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal in light of the extent to which the judge’s errors go to the heart of the findings. I agree with that submission. I think this is a matter that will have to be reheard in the First-tier in light of the extent to which the claim may centre on the matters which were not considered or not considered properly by the judge so there will have to be a full rehearing limited however, or excluding perhaps is a better way of putting it, the Article 8 and the Article 3 issues which were not challenged from the judge’s decision. So it will essentially be a rehearing on the basis of the asylum claim alone and that will be in the First-tier at Hatton Cross, before a different judge, for a rehearing on that issue.

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 his 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 26 April 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Allen