Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: pa/05171/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10th April 2017
On 25th April 2017

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

A Z
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: No appearance
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a male citizen of Pakistan born on 26th July 1983. He first arrived in the United Kingdom on 28th February 2011 when he was given leave to enter as a student until 25th September 2012. Following unsuccessful applications for leave to remain in the same capacity, the Appellant applied for asylum on 24th September 2015. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent’s Notice of Decision dated 13th May 2016. The Appellant appealed, and his appeal was heard at Hatton Cross by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Isaacs (the Judge) on 8th December 2016. The Judge dismissed the appeal on asylum and humanitarian protection grounds, but allowed it on Articles 3 and 8 ECHR grounds for the reasons given in his Decision dated 13th December 2016. The Respondent sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 8th February 2017 such permission was granted.
Error of Law
2. I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.
3. At the hearing before me there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Appellant. I decided to hear the appeal in his absence under the provisions of Rule 38 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. I was satisfied that the Appellant had been properly notified of the hearing and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed.
4. Leave to appeal was granted in respect of the decision to allow the appeal on human rights grounds. Mr Tufan explained that the Judge had allowed the appeal on those grounds despite writing in the body of his Decision in terms dismissing the appeal.
5. I find an error of law in the decision of the Judge which I therefore set aside. As Mr Tufan said, the Judge had written a decision giving his reasons for dismissing the appeal on human rights grounds. For example, at paragraph 91 of the Decision the Judge wrote:
“There is also no credible evidence that there is a risk of breach of his Article 3 rights.”
and:
“In conclusion I find that requiring the Appellant to return to Pakistan would be proportionate and would not amount to a breach of his Article 8 rights.”
Clearly it was a drafting mistake for the Judge then to allow the appeal on human rights grounds under the heading in the Decision “Notice of Decision”. The error of law therefore is that the Judge gave insufficient reasons for allowing the appeal on human rights grounds.

Notice of Decision

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to allow the appeal on human rights grounds did involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I set aside that decision.

I remake the decision in the appeal by dismissing it on human rights grounds.

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal made an order for anonymity which I continue for the reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal.

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.

Signed Dated 24th April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

As I have dismissed the appeal there can be no fee award.

Signed Dated 24th April 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton