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

 

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: P A/00291/2018

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

Heard at North Shields	Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 21 September 2018	On 27 September 2018

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JM HOLMES

 

Between

 

M. S.

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)

Appellant

And

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Ms Cleghorn, Counsel, instructed by Halliday Reeves

For the Respondent: Mr Duffy, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.                   The Appellant, a citizen of Sudan, entered the United Kingdom illegally on 24 June 2017 and claimed asylum upon detection on the basis that he faced a real risk of harm on the basis of his ethnicity as a member of the Zaghawa. The Respondent refused that claim on 20 December 2017.

2.                   An appeal against this decision to refuse a protection claim was heard and allowed by First Tier Tribunal Judge Moran in a decision promulgated on 9 May 2018. In the course of that decision the Judge accepted the Appellant's claimed ethnicity. Having done so, the arguments of the parties turned upon whether the Judge should apply the current country guidance, or, conclude that the evidence relied upon by the Respondent meant that a material and enduring change had occurred in the attitudes of the Sudanese authorities that would justify a departure from it.

3.                   Permission to appeal was granted to the Respondent against the decision of Judge Moran by First-tier Tribunal Judge Farrelly on 31 May 2018.

4.                   No Rule 24 Notice has been lodged in response to the grant of permission to appeal. Neither party has applied pursuant to Rule 15(2A) for permission to rely upon further evidence.

5.                   Thus the matter came before me.

 

The hearing

6.                   When the appeal was called on for hearing Mr Duffy invited me to adjourn the matter to await the outcome of further country guidance upon Sudan. That application had not been made in advance of the hearing, to the Principal Resident Judge, and he could offer no explanation for that failure.

7.                   Mr Duffy accepted that the Respondent's challenge was not based in perversity, or in procedural failure to take into account the evidence relied upon. As drafted, it was a complaint that the reasons given for the Judge's conclusions upon the weight he could attach to the different evidence before me were inadequate. In reality however it is no more than a disagreement with the Judge's decision, dressed up as such.

8.                   In this case the Appellant had relied upon the expert evidence of Mr Verney, both to corroborate the Appellant's claim to ethnicity and experiences, and, to rebut the Respondent's argument that the Sudanese authorities had demonstrably materially changed their attitude towards those of his ethnicity. The Judge was entitled to accept Mr Verney as an expert, and to place weight upon his opinion evidence, to follow the current country guidance, and to allow the appeal, for the reasons given.

9.                   Notwithstanding the terms in which permission to appeal was granted to the Respondent the grounds fail to disclose any arguable error of law in the approach taken by the Judge to the evidence. They are no more than a disagreement with the decision. In the circumstances to adjourn the appeal would serve no purpose other than to foster delay, and waste public resources. I declined to do so.

 

DECISION

The Determination of the First Tier Tribunal which was promulgated on 8 May 20187 contained no error of law in the decision to allow the Appellant's appeal which requires that decision to be set aside and remade, and it is accordingly confirmed.

 

Direction regarding anonymity - Rule 14 Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

 

Unless and until the Tribunal directs otherwise the Appellant is granted anonymity throughout these proceedings. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him. This direction applies both to the Appellant and to the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to proceedings being brought for contempt of court.

 

Signed

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge JM Holmes

Dated 21 September 2018