Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03195/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Liverpool
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 22 December 2016
On 25 January 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

Mohammad Hassan Abdulah
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss Patel, instructed by Brudie Jackson Canter
For the Respondent: Mr Harrison, a Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, Mr Mohammad Hassan Abdulah, was born on 1 January 1987 and is a male citizen of Libya. The appellant had appealed against the decision of the Secretary of State dated 17 November 2015 to refuse to grant him asylum. The First-tier Tribunal (Judge M Davies) in a decision promulgated on 27 July 2016 dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. I find that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside. I have reached that conclusion for the following reasons. By any standards, some of the reasoning of Judge M Davies is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. At [39], the judge wrote that, "it is clear that the appellant was not subjected to persecution or treatment which amounted to serious harm prior to his departure from Libya. Whilst I accept that black Libyans are or may be persecuted in Libya it is clear such treatment does not amount to persecution or serious harm." It is just about possible to achieve a construction of that last sentence which makes sense (the judge may have been referring by the use of the words "such treatment" to the treatment which this appellant received in Libya, rather than the persecution generally of black Libyans in that country). However, the purpose of any decision or judgment is primarily to explain to the losing party in clear and unequivocal terms why he or she has lost. It is not appropriate, in my opinion, for the losing party to have to wrestle with semantics in order to impose meaning upon a judgment which prima facie does not make sense. The lack of clarity in this instance is such that the decision cannot stand.
3. I would say that I also find that the remainder of the analysis at [40-44] consists, at least in part, of a series of assertions unsupported by reasoning, rather than of cogent findings of fact.
4. I set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. There will need to be a new fact-finding exercise; none of the findings of fact shall stand. That is an exercise better conducted in the First-tier Tribunal to which this case has returned. I do not suggest that any part of my decision should influence the next judicial decision maker. Having found the facts, the new Tribunal must make a new decision applying the relevant law and country guidance.
Notice of Decision
5. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 27 July 2016 is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal (not Judge M Davies) for that Tribunal to remake the decision. None of the findings of fact shall stand.
6. No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 20 January 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane

No fee is paid or payable and therefore there can be no fee award.

Signed Date 20 January 2017

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane