PA/05176/2016

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 2 Dec 2016
• Promulgation date: 13 Dec 2016
• Publication date: 5 Feb 2021
• Last updated on: 5 Feb 2021

The decision

IAC-BFD-MD-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05176/2016


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 2 December 2016
On 13 December 2016



Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE APPLEYARD


Between

mr parvinder singh kalra
(anonymity direction NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent


Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr G Brown, Counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr M Diwnycz, Home Office Presenting Officer.


DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a citizen of Afghanistan and of the Sikh religion. He claimed asylum on 27 November 2015. His application was refused and he appealed. Following a hearing at Bradford on 19 September 2016 Judge of the First-tier Tribunal S Gillespie, in a decision promulgated on 10 October 2016, dismissed the Appellant's appeal.
2. The Appellant sought permission to appeal which was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Grimmett. Her reasons for so doing were:-
"1. The Appellant seeks permission to appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Gillespie promulgated on 10 October 2016 to refuse his protection claim.
2. The Appellant says that the Judge failed to consider the Appellant's wife's evidence with regard to the kidnapping of their daughter. The Judge referred neither to her witness statement nor her oral evidence in the conclusions and it is therefore arguable that there was an error of law."
3. Thus the appeal came before me today.
4. The nub of Mr Brown's submissions can be gleaned from paragraph 8 of the grounds. There it is asserted that the Judge materially erred by completely failing to consider or make findings on the Appellant's wife's written and oral evidence which supported his claim, came to conclusions based upon how the Judge believed the kidnappers would behave and disregarded country evidence. Mr Brown also emphasised factual errors made by the Judge which he submitted amounted to a material error of law in relation to whether or not the claimed kidnapping was reported to the police.
5. Mr Diwnycz, whilst formally opposing the application, accepted that having listened to the submissions of Mr Brown he would be in some difficulty in opposing the application made.
6. I agree with that analysis. The Judge has materially erred for the reasons put forward within the grounds seeking permission to appeal and the submissions of Mr Brown.
7. There needs to be a full fact finding exercise in this appeal. I was unable to proceed as no interpreter had been provided.
8. In the circumstances both representatives invited me to remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing. That is a course which I find appropriate. The First-tier Tribunal's decision contains errors of law and has to be set aside in its entirety. The appeal will be considered afresh by the First-tier Tribunal.

Decision
The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law. The decision is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be dealt with afresh, pursuant to Section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Practice Statement 7.2(b), before any Judge aside from Judge S Gillespie.

No anonymity direction is made.


Signed Date: 12 December 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Appleyard