PA/03028/2016

  • 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/03028/2016




THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 22 December 2016
On 23rd December 2016




Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK


Between

YT
(anonymity direction made)

Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent



Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr J. Oommen, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr D. Clarke, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION PURSUANT TO RULE 39 OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

1. The appellant is a citizen of Eritrea, born on 1 January 2002. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT) against a decision to refuse leave to remain on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds. First-tier Tribunal Judge Geraint Jones Q.C. ("the FtJ") dismissed his appeal after a hearing on 5 September 2016.
2. Permission to appeal against the decision of the FtJ having been granted, his appeal came before me.
3. By consent, the parties agreed the following:
(i) that the FtJ erred in law in dismissing the appeal on asylum and human rights grounds;
(ii) that the FtJ's decision should be set aside; and
(iii) that in the light of the decision in MST and Others (national service-risk categories) Eritrea CG [2016] UKUT 00443 (IAC), the accepted facts including the appellant's age and his illegal exit from Eritrea, that his appeal falls to be allowed on asylum and human rights grounds with reference to Article 3 of the ECHR.
4. Having heard the parties, and considering rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, I make a consent order in the terms expressed in [3] above, considering it appropriate to do so, and thus allowing the appellant's appeal on asylum and human rights grounds with reference to Article 3 of the ECHR. The consent order is as contained herein, no separate document being required.

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

Because of the age of the appellant I consider that an anonymity order is appropriate. Therefore, 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.

Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek 22/12/16