PA/06860/2016

• Status of case: Unreported
• Hearing date: 18 Feb 2017
• Promulgation date: 21 Feb 2017
• Publication date: 14 Dec 2021
• Last updated on: 14 Dec 2021

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/06860/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons sent out
On 18 January 2017
On 21 February 2017



Before
Upper Tribunal Judge John FREEMAN

Between
Hamadullah [M]
appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
respondent

Representation:
Paul Turner, counsel for the appellant
Mr Stephen Staunton for the respondent


DECISION AND REASONS

This is an appeal against the decision of Judge Sureta Chana, sitting at Hatton Cross on 7 October 2016, by an appellant born in Afghanistan in 1991. In 2011 he arrived on a student visa which was valid until 2013; he was refused leave to enter, but given temporary admission. However in 2012 he failed to report and his student visa was curtailed, following which in 2016 he claimed asylum, and was served with removal directions. Asylum was refused after interview, and so he appealed to the judge.

2. There was a considerable amount of documentary evidence before the judge: however she disbelieved his evidence for the reasons which she gave. Those reasons dealt specifically with documentary evidence, produced at the hearing which the judge refers to at paragraph 30. What they did not deal with was a number of items of significant documentary evidence which had been produced before the hearing. In particular, at the judge's paragraphs 23 and 24, she made findings that there was no credible documentary evidence that his father and brother's disappearance, apparently at the hands of the Taliban, had been reported to the authorities in Afghanistan. I have been referred to documentary evidence which was before her and if accepted, was capable of providing such evidence and should clearly have been dealt with in that context.

3. The same applies to the judge's findings at paragraphs 24 and 25. At 24 she notes what she says is the lack of the evidence that the Taliban had been in touch with the appellant's family; but again I have been referred to messages from the Taliban which were before her, and which, if accepted, would show that. There is also a letter from Sardar Mohammad Sahak who says he is a NATO contractor, and has produced a copy of an ID card, apparently issued by the US forces, to vouch for that. In the letter he gives an account supporting that given by the appellant. Again that needed to be dealt with and, if accepted, could provide the evidence that the judge said was missing.

4. Finally there is a point about the appellant's uncle being killed by the Taliban at paragraph 25, and there is an argument, which I need not deal with, about the transcript of the news item being provided. Again further evidence was provided, on which findings would have to be made.

5. The agreed result is that there will have to be a fresh hearing, from the start, covering all asylum and human rights issues, including the possibility of internal relocation within Afghanistan. This will take place at Hatton Cross, before another first-tier judge.

Appeal against first-tier decision allowed
Appeal to be heard again, not before Judge Chana
(a judge of the Upper Tribunal)