Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05094/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at North Shields
Decision and Reason Promulgated
On 28 March 2017
On 30 March 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JM HOLMES

Between

M. Z.
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Boyle, Solicitor, Halliday Reeves Law Firm
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant entered the United Kingdom illegally and claimed asylum on 1 December 2015 after arrest. The application was refused on 13 May 2016, and a section 120 notice was served as part of the decision.
2. The Appellant’s appeal to the Tribunal was heard and allowed by decision of Judge Head-Rapson promulgated on 15 November 2016.
3. The Respondent’s application to the First Tier Tribunal for permission to appeal was granted on 8 December 2016 by Judge Nightingale on the basis it was arguable the Judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for her decision. The Appellant filed no Rule 24 notice in response to that grant of permission.
4. Thus the matter comes before me.

Error of Law?
5. The Respondent’s reasons for the refusal of the Appellant’s asylum claim, as set out in her letter of 13 May 2016 did not suggest that his account was incredible; it was simply stated therein that the Respondent found that account implausible [RFR #12-3]. The term implausible, is not equivalent to the term incredible.
6. Mr Diwnycz accepted before me that he was unable to identify any inconsistency in the Appellant’s account that was uncovered by either the Appellant’s interviews, or his cross-examination, and he accepted that the Respondent’s case in closing submissions before the Judge remained simply that the account was implausible. Indeed he accepted that it was not put to the Appellant that he had made a bogus claim based upon a fiction. Thus he accepted that it was entirely open to the Judge upon the evidence that was before her, applying the requisite low standard of proof, to find as she did; namely, that the Appellant’s evidence was consistent, unembellished and credible.
7. I regret to say that in these circumstances the Respondent’s application for permission to appeal should never have been made. The Judge could indeed have written a lengthier judgement, but there is simply no merit in the criticism levelled by the author of the grounds of the application for permission to appeal, which was that the Respondent was unable to discern the reason why the appeal had been allowed.
8. In the circumstances, as to be fair Mr Diwnycz accepts, the Judge did not make any material error of law in her decision to allow the appeal, and that decision must stand.

DECISION
The Decision of the First Tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 15 November 2016 did not involve the making of an error of law in the decision to allow the appeal that requires that decision to be set aside and remade. That decision is accordingly confirmed.

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge JM Holmes
Dated 28 March 2017

Direction regarding anonymity – Rule 14 Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Unless and until the Tribunal directs otherwise the Appellant is granted anonymity throughout these proceedings. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to proceedings being brought for contempt of court.

Signed

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge JM Holmes
Dated 28 March 2017