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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/02955/2020

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 26 November 2021	On 15 December 2021

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK

 

 

Between

 

AAH

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant

and

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Ms F Shaw, Counsel instructed by AZ Law

For the Respondent: Mr T. Lindsay, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION PURSUANT TO RULE 40(3)(a) OF THE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (UPPER TRIBUNAL) RULES 2008

 

1.              The appellant, a citizen of Iraq, appealed to the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") against a decision to refuse her protection claim. The FtT dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

2.              Permission to appeal the decision of the FtT having been granted, the appeal came before me at a case management review hearing ("CMR"). At that hearing it was agreed between the parties that the FtT had erred in law for the reasons advanced in the grounds of appeal upon which permission to appeal was granted (and to which reference may be made for a full understanding of the errors of law).

3.              It was further agreed between the parties that the errors of law are such as to require the decision of the FtT to be set aside and for the appeal to be remitted to the FtT for a hearing de novo.

4.              In the circumstances, I set aside the decision of the FtT for error of law and remit the appeal to the FtT for a hearing de novo, on all grounds, before a judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge kemp, with no findings of fact preserved.

5.              In remitting the appeal I have had regard to paragraph 7.2 of the Practice Statement of the Senior President of Tribunals.

6.              Pursuant to rule 40(3)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, no reasons (or further reasons) are required, the decision being made with the consent of the parties.

7.              It is to be noted that at the hearing before me, on behalf of the respondent consent was given for the 'new matter' of the appellant's relationship with his partner and child to be considered in the course of the appeal.

 

A.M. Kopieczek

 

Upper Tribunal Judge Kopieczek 8/12/21