United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/06561/2017

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

Heard at Manchester On 2 May 2018	Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 9 May 2018

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE

 

Between

 

A T

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant

 

and

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Mr M Moksud of Immigration International Advice

For the Respondent: Mrs H Aboni, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1. To preserve the anonymity direction deemed necessary by the First-tier Tribunal, I make an anonymity order under Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, precluding publication of any information regarding the proceedings which would be likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant.

 

2. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Wedderspoon promulgated on 15 November 2017, which dismissed the Appellant's appeal on all grounds.

 

 

 

 

Background

 

3. The Appellant was born on 1 July 1968 and is a national of Algeria. On 23 June 2017 the Secretary of State refused the Appellant's protection claim.

 

The Judge's Decision

 

4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. First-tier Tribunal Judge Wedderspoon ("the Judge") dismissed the appeal against the Respondent's decision. Grounds of appeal were lodged and on 11 December 2017 First-tier Tribunal Judge Andrew gave permission to appeal stating

 

I am satisfied there are arguable errors of law in this decision in that the Judge gave inadequate reasons for finding the appellant was not credible in his claims. Further, he did not consider article 8 despite this being a ground of appeal and refered to, albeit briefly, in the skeleton argument.

 

The Hearing

 

5. Mrs Aboni told me that having considered the decision and the grant of permission to appeal she would have difficulty resisting the appeal. Mr Moksud moved the grounds of appeal and asked me to set the decision aside and remit this case to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard of new because of the inadequacy of fact finding, and because the article 8 ECHR grounds of appeal have not been considered.

 

Analysis

 

6. I am grateful to Mrs Aboni for her pragmatic approach to this appeal. The Judge's findings are contained between [21] and [24] of the decision. In those short paragraphs the Judge says that she is not satisfied with aspects of the appellant's claim that there are inconsistencies in the evidence.

 

7. The Judge does not explain why she is not satisfied with aspects of the appellant's evidence. The Judge does not carry out any meaningful analysis of the evidence nor does she adequately explain where she finds inconsistency.

 

8. Before the First-tier, the appellant adopted the terms of his witness statement. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of his witness statement drive at article 8 ECHR grounds of appeal. No consideration is given to article 8 ECHR grounds of appeal in the Judge's decision.

 

9. In MK (duty to give reasons) Pakistan [2013] UKUT 641 (IAC), it was held that (i) It was axiomatic that a determination disclosed clearly the reasons for a tribunal's decision. (ii) If a tribunal found oral evidence to be implausible, incredible or unreliable or a document to be worth no weight whatsoever, it was necessary to say so in the determination and for such findings to be supported by reasons. A bare statement that a witness was not believed or that a document was afforded no weight was unlikely to satisfy the requirement to give reasons.

 

10. As the decision is tainted by material errors of law I must set it aside. I am asked to remit this case to the First -tier. I consider whether or not I can substitute my own decision, but find that I cannot do so because of the extent of the fact-finding exercise necessary.

Remittal to First-Tier Tribunal

11. Under Part 3 paragraph 7.2(b) of the Upper Tribunal Practice Statement of the 25 ^th of September 2012 the case may be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal if the Upper Tribunal is satisfied that:

(a) the effect of the error has been to deprive a party before the First-tier Tribunal of a fair hearing or other opportunity for that party's case to be put to and considered by the First-tier Tribunal; or

 

(b) the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in the appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal.

12. In this case I have determined that the case should be remitted because a new fact-finding exercise is required. None of the findings of fact are to stand and a complete re-hearing is necessary.

13. I remit this case to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester to be heard before any First-tier Judge other than Judge R Wedderspoon.

 

Decision

14. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is tainted by material errors of law.

15. I set aside the Judge's decision promulgated on 15 November 2017 . The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined of new.

 

 

Signed Paul Doyle Date 8 May 2018

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle