BAILII [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 >> AA103352011 [2014] UKAITUR AA103352011 (17 February 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/AA103352011.html
Cite as: [2014] UKAITUR AA103352011

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


     

    Upper Tribunal

    (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/10335/2011

     

     

    THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

     

     

    Heard at Field House

    Determination Promulgated

    On 12 February 2014

     

     

     

     

     

    Before

     

    UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ESHUN

     

    Between

     

    MR J A J

     

    Appellant

    and

     

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

     

    Respondent

     

     

    Representation:

     

    For the Appellant: Mr. G Davidson, Counsel

    For the Respondent: Mr. T Wilding, HOPO

     

     

    DECISION ON ERROR OF LAW

     

     

    1. The appellant is a citizen of Sri Lanka, born on 2 July 1988. He entered the UK on a student visa in January 2011. He claimed asylum on 26 July 2011. The SoS refused his application on 24 July 2011. The appellant’s appeal against the respondent’s decision was dismissed by Immigration Judge CM Phillips in a determination promulgated 21 November 2011. The Judge’s decision was set aside by UTJ Lane. On 21 May 2012 a DUTJ held that the judge materially erred in law and her decision could not stand. The appellant’s appeal was again dismissed by UTJ Martin in September 2012. Her decision was quashed by the Court of Appeal as disclosing an error of law for the reasons set out in the Statement of Reasons.

     

    2. The parties have agreed that the error of law identified in the Statement of Reasons has infected the whole of the UTJ’s credibility findings. Therefore the appellant’s case has to be heard de novo.

     

    3. The appellant’s appeal is remitted to the FtT at Hatton Cross to be heard afresh by a judge other than Judge Phillips.

     

     

     

     

    Signed Date

    Upper Tribunal Judge Eshun

     

     

     

     

    DIRECTIONS

     

    1. A CMR would be required in light of the age of the case and to identify the issues that will be argued by the appellant and to issue appropriate directions.

     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2014/AA103352011.html