BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments >> AA004692013 [2014] UKAITUR AA004692013 (27 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/AA004692013.html Cite as: [2014] UKAITUR AA4692013, [2014] UKAITUR AA004692013 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00469/2013
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
| Heard at Bradford | Determination Promulgated |
| On 21 May 2014 | On 27 May 2014 |
|
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR
Between
SARAH OJUDUN
Appellant
And
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms Khan, Counsel, instructed by Howells solicitors.
For the Respondent: Mrs Pettersen, HOPO
DECISION AND DIRECTIONS
1. This is the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Mensah made following a hearing at Bradford on the 16 September 2013, dismissing her appeal against the Respondent’s decision of the 22 December 2012 to refuse to grant her asylum.
2. The appellant’s claim is based upon her fear of the father of her children, who is in Nigeria, and those who were involved in her being trafficked to the UK.
3. This matter first came before Judge Henderson on 18 April 2013 and she dismissed the appeal. That decision was set aside by the Upper Tribunal on 15 July 2013 for failure to consider the expert report, and remitted to the First tier Tribunal, hence the appeal before Judge Mensah.
4. The Appellant now argues that Judge Mensah fell into the same error in that she failed to make clear whether she was dealing with one expert report or two, and in particular failed to consider the second report at all, reached her conclusions on credibility first, and then used that as a reason for rejecting the expert’s assessment and failed to take any account at all of the fact that the Appellant had a decision from the Competent Authority that there were reasonable grounds to believe that she had been trafficked.
5. Mrs Pettersen accepted that the decision could not stand and should be remade, and agreed that since there was a need for fresh credibility findings to be made, the appropriate course was remittal to the First-tier Tribunal.
6. Given the history of this matter, and the fact that it has been before 2 different fee paid judge at Bradford, and set aside twice, it should be listed before a salaried judge on the next occasion.
Signed Date 21/05/2014
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
