![]() |
[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 >> PA054182018 [2019] UKAITUR PA054182018 (16 July 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2019/PA054182018.html Cite as: [2019] UKAITUR PA054182018, [2019] UKAITUR PA54182018 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05418/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Glasgow |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
On 11 July 2019 |
On 16 July 2019 |
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN
Between
KARWAN AHMEDI
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms H Cosgrove, of Latta & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Diwyncz, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. FtT Judge Fox heard the appellant's appeal on 22 June 2018 and dismissed it by a decision promulgated on 22 February 2018.
2. The decision should have said why there was such a long delay, but does not mention the matter.
3. The unexplained delay is not by itself a reason to set the decision aside, but it is a contributing factor.
4. The Judge said that the appellant's injuries were at level B on the Istanbul Protocol, when at least one injury was at level C. He refers to a report from a psychiatrist, when it was from a psychologist.
5. Further country guidance, issued during the period of delay, might have impacted on the outcome. The possibility should at least have been considered.
6. The grounds of appeal to the UT raise other challenges, which it is unnecessary to resolve. The respondent conceded, fairly and correctly, that the grounds showed that the decision could not safely stand. The following outcome was agreed.
7. The decision of the FtT is set aside. It stands only as a record of what was said at the hearing.
8. The nature of the case is such that it is appropriate under section 12 of the 2007 Act, and under Practice Statement 7.2, to remit to the FtT for an entirely fresh hearing.
9. The member(s) of the FtT chosen to consider the case are not to include Judge Fox.
10. No anonymity direction has been requested or made.
11 July 2019
UT Judge Macleman