PA/02538/2017

  • 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/02538/2017


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Eagle House, Glasgow
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4 January 2018
On 19 January 2018



Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RINTOUL

Between

omar alyusfi
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant


and



THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent


Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr B Melville, Drummond Miller Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms R Pettersen Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mill promulgated on 11 July 2017 dismissing his appeal against the decision of the respondent made on 16 September 2016 to refuse him leave to remain and to refuse his protection claim.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Libya. It is his case that his removal to Libya would, inter alia, result in treatment contrary article 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that he would not. Permission to appeal against that decision was sought on the basis that in reaching such a conclusion, the judge had failed properly to have regard to ZMM (Article 15 (c)) Libya CG [2017] UKUT 00263. Permission was granted on that basis.
3. The parties agreed that the judge had erred in law, and that the decision was to be remade. I am satisfied that the judge did err as averred, and that the decision should be remade in light of ZMM, and should be allowed on that basis. Neither party objected to this.
4. Rule 40 (1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provided that the Upper Tribunal may give a decision orally at a hearing. Ruled 40 (3) provides that the Upper Tribunal must provide written reasons for its decision with a decision notice unless the parties have consented to the Upper Tribunal not giving written reasons which both Mr Melville and Ms Pettersen did.
5. In the circumstances, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and is set aside. The appeal is remade by allowing the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and I set it aside insofar as it relates to humanitarian protection. The dismissal of the appeal on asylum grounds is preserved.
2. I remake the decision by allowing the appeal on humanitarian protection grounds.


Signed Date: 4 January 2018

Upper Tribunal Judge Rintoul