Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-CK-V3

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03707/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11 November 2016
On 1 February 2017
Determination given 11 November 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DAVEY

Between

Sutharsan [R]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr G Davison, Counsel, instructed by S Satha & Co
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Senior Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant, a national of Sri Lanka, date of birth 23 July 1997, appealed against the Respondent's decision, dated 5 April 2016, refusing an asylum and protection claim and also under the Immigration Rules in terms of private life.
2. The appeal came before First-tier Tribunal Judge Carroll (the judge), who on 16 September 2016 dismissed the claims on all grounds. An anonymity order was not made. The judge had at least the disadvantage that the Appellant was unable to give evidence. There was no witness statement from the Appellant and therefore when assessing credibility and the centrepiece of the claim the judge was largely reliant upon other evidence, particularly medical evidence, country information and other assessments in terms of the relevance of the Appellant's health to the extent of risk he faced upon return. At paragraph 20 the judge said:
"? I have carefully considered all of the evidence relating to his claim, including the medical evidence referred to above, and I find that the Appellant is not credible as to the circumstances in which he claims he was compelled to flee Sri Lanka or as to his claimed fear of return."
3. The judge then indicated certain matters of fact which she had regard to. Mr Davison points out that those facts were not developed into reasons as to why they were significant or material or should be given particular weight in the circumstances of the case.
4. For example, the judge said "the Appellant gave an alias name at his screening interview". That may be correct as a fact but it is the question of what consequences that has or direct bearing it has on credibility. The Appellant was further and more fully interviewed in an asylum interview which was extensively recorded. The question therefore is what weight was being given to the screening interview as being relevant to the assessment of credibility. Similarly the judge also identified "the Appellant has given two completely different accounts, in his screening and substantive asylum interviews, on the basis of his claim for asylum. Nowhere has the judge explained why he has given two such different accounts."
5. It must be obvious, in the light of the case law, that answers given in screening interviews are not necessarily considered determinative when, although the interviewee is being told that they must answer the questions fully and truthfully, the brevity and purpose of the screening interview in practice limits the scope to which an 'in depth' explanation can be given of events: Assuming that the asylum seeker is confident and able to give a full account at the time. To the extent to which a contrast is drawn between the two interviews it seems to me again could be, if not properly explained, a basis for rejecting credibility or at least having doubts about it. However, the judge having recited these and other factors simply does not pull the threads together to substantiate the argument, which presumably she wished to make, that they are sufficiently significant as to seriously damage the Appellant's credibility.
6. Similarly the judge in looking at the medical evidence I think in one sense fails to follow the approach identified in the case of Mibanga [2005] EWCA Civ 367 but rather, in the circumstances, does not explain to a sufficient extent her reasoning why that medical evidence ultimately was demonstrating inconsistencies or unreliability in the Appellant's account as presented to others. Finally the judge refers to the background evidence to which she has taken account but again the assessment as to whether or not the Appellant falls into a category of persons at risk on return or at risk by virtue of his mental health, really is not properly addressed against that background information. For these reasons I am satisfied the Original Tribunal's decision cannot stand and the matter will have to be readdressed in the First-tier Tribunal.

NOTICE OF DECISION
The appeal is allowed to the extent that a resumed hearing is required.

DIRECTIONS
(1) List two hours not before Judge Carroll.
(2) Tamil interpreter required.
(3) All further documents relied upon to be provided to the Tribunal and the Home Office not later than ten working days before the further hearing and any further medical evidence relied upon either as to the issues of the Appellant's mental health or ability to give evidence again to be served on the Tribunal and the Home Office not later than ten working days before the further hearing.

ANONYMITY
No anonymity order was required.

Signed Date 30 January 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Davey

P.S. I regret the delay in promulgation which is due to the file being miss-located.