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 >> PA003922020 [2021] UKAITUR PA003922020 (23 February 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2021/PA003922020.html Cite as: [2021] UKAITUR PA3922020, [2021] UKAITUR PA003922020 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Asylum and Immigration tribunal-b&w-tiff
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/00392/2020
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Done without a hearing at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
On 5 February 2021 |
On 23 February 2021 |
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
Between
S Z T
(ANONIMITY ORDER IN FORCE)
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1) Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I make an order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the Appellant. Breach of this order can be punished as a contempt of court. I make this order because the Appellant is an asylum seeker and so is entitled to privacy.
2) He was given permission to appeal because, inter alia, arguably his reasoning was not clear.
3) Directions were given suggesting disposal without a hearing.
4) In a letter dated 12 October 2020 the Respondent's representative accepted that it was unclear what the judge had made of documents purporting to come from a court in Pakistan and, additionally, the Judge's reference at paragraph 64 of the Decision and Reasons to "family members" in the UK is obscure. If the Judge meant the immediate family members who travelled with him from Pakistan it would have been better to have said so clearly.
5) The Respondent accepted that the adverse credibility findings were unsafe because they were based, at least in part, on unjustified or unsatisfactorily explained findings.
6) The Respondent suggested that the decision be set aside and the case reheard in the First-tier Tribunal.
7) I have read the decision and share the Respondent's concerns.
8) I see no need to say any more.
9) The First-tier Tribunal erred. I set aside its decision and I direct that the appeal be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal.
Notice of Decision
10) The appeal is allowed to extent indicated above.
Jonathan Perkins
Signed |
|
Jonathan Perkins |
|
Judge of the Upper Tribunal |
Dated 5 February 2021 |