Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-002923

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/55821/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 11th of March 2025

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE OBI

Between

MA
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Saad Saeed, Solicitor, Aman Solicitor Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms Amrika Nolan, Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 20 January 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1. The Appellant, a citizen of Egypt, appeals with permission against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Smyth (‘the Judge’), promulgated on 14 May 2024 following a hearing on 10 May 2024. By that decision, the Judge dismissed the Appellant’s appeal.

Background

2. The Appellant left Egypt in January 2020 on a Sportsperson Visa which expired on 23 June 2020. He came to the UK to attend a karate event. On 7 June 2021, the Appellant was encountered by South Wales police during a visit to a building site. The Appellant claimed asylum that same day. He asserted during his screening interview that he would be at risk on return to Egypt due to his association with the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. The Appellant’s asylum interview took place on 23 June 2023. The Appellant is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but his father is an active member. The Appellant stated that he used to accompany his father to events and helped in meetings, elections, and demonstrations. It had been the Appellant’s intention to return to Egypt after the karate event but due to the COVID-19 lockdown he was unable to go back. The Appellant’s father was imprisoned in 2020 for belonging to a banned organisation and plotting to overthrow the government. The Appellant stated that he was sentenced, in his absence, in 2021 for the same offences as his father and for public disorder, damaging the government and damaging state-owned property. He was informed of this by his mother. He stated, during the interview, that he would be able to obtain supporting evidence from his solicitor in Egypt.

Decision of the First Tier Tribunal

4. The Judge heard oral evidence from the Appellant. The Appellant confirmed the contents of his witness statement, dated 25th January 2024, and gave evidence through an Arabic interpreter (Egyptian dialect).

5. The Judge went on to make a number of adverse credibility findings before concluding that the Appellant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a convention reason and does not face a real risk of serious harm.

Appeal to the Upper Tribunal

6. The Appellant was granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by First-tier Tribunal Judge O’Brien on 15 July 2024. The grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows:

i. Ground 1 - Failing to Address All Issues/Determination

The Judge failed to address all the grounds of appeal relied upon by the Appellant in addition to his asylum claim, namely article 3 of ECHR and humanitarian protection. The determination solely sets out the Judge’s credibility findings. There is a complete failure to consider the country background evidence which supported the Appellant’s asylum claim.

ii. Ground 2 – Credibility Findings

The Judge erred in law by making adverse credibility findings and considering various aspects of the Appellant’s asylum claim in isolation. The Respondent raised a number of issues in the refusal letter, which were adequately addressed by the Appellant in his witness statement. The Judge failed to consider the Appellant’s explanations. The Judge failed to apply key principles regarding credibility and the reasons he provided are not sufficient to undermine the Appellant’s asylum claim.

iii. Ground 3 – Documentary evidence

The Judge failed to give due weight to the supporting documents provided by the Appellant and failed to consider the explanation for the delay in obtaining these documents.

iv. Ground 4 – Erroneous Approach

The Judge failed to consider the evidence in the round. The Judge also failed to properly address the Appellant’s evidence and supporting evidence.

7. First Tier Tribunal Judge O’Brien stated, in relation to Ground 3, that the Judge arguably overlooked material evidence when considering the documents’ reliability and/or gave inadequate reasons for not finding the documents reliable. He concluded that those arguable errors also render the remaining grounds arguable.

Rule 24

8. The Respondent did not provide a rule 24 response.

The Hearing

9. At the hearing, the Respondent conceded that the Judge had erred in law by making no assessment of the core claim. It was submitted that the matter should be remitted to the First Tier Tribunal. The Appellant supported remittal to the First Tier Tribunal on the basis that the Appellant had been denied the opportunity of a fair hearing.

10. I informed the parties at the hearing that I was satisfied that there had been a material error of law and that the case should be remitted to the First Tier Tribunal with written reasons to follow. The Upper Tribunal is not bound by the Respondent’s concession. However, the fact that there was no dispute between the parties was an important factor in my assessment. It is clear that the Judge did not address all the Appellant’s grounds of appeal. There was a further failure to take account of relevant evidence, including that set out in the Appellant’s witness statement and the objective evidence at all, or in the round. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the concession was properly made. None of the Judge’s findings are preserved.

11. Applying AEB [2022] EWCA Civ 1512 and Begum (Remaking or remittal) Bangladesh [2023] UKUT 00046 (IAC), I considered whether to retain the matter for remaking in the Upper Tribunal, in line with the general principle set out in paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Statements of the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. However, taking into account the nature and extent of the findings to be made and the fact that the nature of the errors of law in this case meant that the Appellant was deprived of a fair hearing, I determined that the unfairness would be compounded if the Appellant was unable to avail himself of the two-tier decision-making process. Therefore, the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.

Notice of Decision

12. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of a material error of law as set out in the Appellant’s grounds and as summarised by the grant of permission.

13. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety.

14. The decision is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing before a Judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Smyth.

Margaret Obi

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

4 March 2025