PA/03512/2017

  • 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/03512/2017


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Glasgow
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 21 March 2018
On 23 March 2018


Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN


Between

Y H A
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr E MacKay, of McGlashan MacKay, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs M O'Brien, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer


DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant appeals against a decision by First-tier Tribunal Judge Green, promulgated on 31 October 2017.
2. The grounds of appeal to the UT run to 8 detailed pages, framing a debate on whether the judge failed to give sufficient consideration to the appellant's sur place activities.
3. There was a live issue at the hearing in the FtT about whether further evidence of those activities should be admitted. It is not likely that the judge's refusal to admit that evidence might be found to have involved any procedural unfairness or error of law, but that issue does not now need to be resolved.
4. Mrs O'Brien said that the debate about admitting further evidence in the FtT, and concentration there on matters which are no longer disputed, appeared to have led the judge into overlooking evidence of sur place activities which was already on file, as rehearsed in the grounds of appeal to the UT. She conceded that this amounted to material error of law.
5. The further resolution of the case was agreed between the parties.
6. The remaining issue is only the significance of the appellant's sur place activities. There is no reason to revisit the FtT's findings on other matters.
7. The decision of the FtT is set aside and the case is remitted to the FtT to enable that further decision to be made by another judge.
8. The FtT made an anonymity direction. There does not appear to have been an application for one, or any need for one, but as the matter was not addressed in the UT, anonymity is preserved herein.





21 March 2018
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman