PA/05039/2016

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 24 Nov 2016
• Promulgation date: 30 Jan 2017
• Publication date: 2 Sep 2021
• Last updated on: 2 Sep 2021

The decision

IAC-TH-WYL-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05039/2016


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 24 November 2016
On 30 January 2017



Before

LORD MATTHEWS, SITTING AS AN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE


Between

SA
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Saeed, Solicitor
For the Respondent: Mr P Armstrong, Home Office Presenting Officer


DECISION AND REASONS
1. This appeal is against a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Sangha promulgated on 20 September 2016 dismissing the appellant's appeal against the respondent's refusal to grant asylum and humanitarian protection.
2. The appellant is a Pakistani national. He entered the UK in circumstances into which it is not necessary to go for present purposes and he claimed asylum on 6 November 2015, that claim being refused.
3. A number of grounds were advanced before us. We can deal very quickly with ground 1, which is predicated upon what is nothing more than an obvious typing error in the judge's determination. We need not go into details about that mistake. It suffices to say that when the paragraph in which it appears is read as a whole it is plain that it is of no materiality.
4. Ground 2 is of more substance. It is submitted that the First-tier Tribunal Judge erred in consideration of the appeal because he may have considered the appellant's oral and written evidence first, made certain findings based on his finding that the appellant was of low credibility and then considered the expert report, which, on the face of it at least, contains material which could be regarded as supportive of the appellant's case. It is our opinion that this is an error of law. A fair reading of the determination of the First-tier Tribunal brings us to the conclusion that he has looked at the evidence of the appellant, has decided whether or not to accept it, and having decided not to, has then looked at the report and considered its contents in the light of his own finding that the appellant lacked credibility. This is an error. It seems to us that what he ought to have done is look at all the evidence in the round and should have considered whether the contents of the expert's report could have supported the appellant's credibility, and if they could have done, whether they did so or not. It was an error to consider the appellant in isolation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that ground 2 is made out.
5. A number of other grounds were advanced. They deal with particular criticisms of the First-tier Tribunal's treatment of the expert report. We do not think it appropriate to say very much about those at this stage. We have decided that this case must be reheard and if we were to say anything about these various matters it might be that it would influence unduly the consideration of the issue by another judge.
6. It is to be noted also that we are somewhat alarmed that, while the expert in her report makes it plain that she has been abused and may well be on the ground in a delicate and dangerous situation, her request for anonymity was not taken up by the First-tier Tribunal Judge and we expect that that request will be noted in the future and acted upon.

Notice of Decision
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Both parties were agreed that in view of the nature of the case and in view of the considerable evidence which has to be considered of new the case should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal before a different judge.
Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
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 their 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.



LORD MATTHEWS
Sitting as an Upper Tribunal Judge
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)