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

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/03092/2018

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Liverpool	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On July 11, 2018	On July 16, 2018

 

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

 

 

Between

 

M Q

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)

Appellant

 

and

 

the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENR

 

 

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Mr Greer, Counsel, instructed by Broudie Jackson and Canter

Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr McVeety, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

1.              No anonymity direction is made.

2.              The appellant is a national of Pakistan. The appellant claimed to have entered the United Kingdom on June 12, 2011. He applied for leave to remain on November 11, 2012 and was granted leave until March 19, 2014 although this was subsequently extended until November 24, 2015. The appellant then applied for leave to remain but this was refused on June 11, 2015 and two subsequent applications on July 1, 2015 and October 28, 2015 were both rejected. The appellant claimed asylum on April 17, 2016 shortly after he had been served with form RED.0001 on April 7, 2016.

3.              The respondent rejected his application for protection and on human rights grounds on February 22, 2018.

4.              The appellant lodged grounds of appeal on March 5, 2018 under Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. His appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Maxwell (hereinafter called "the Judge") on April 5, 2018 and in a decision promulgated on April 17, 2018 the Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal on protection and human rights grounds.

5.              The appellant appealed this decision on April 30, 2018. The appellant's grounds included that the Judge had erred by failing to give adequate reasons on the issue of plausibility, failed to take into account material evidence put forward by the appellant in written and oral form, significantly considered the appeal on the basis that the appellant had been "able to continue his relationship unabated" when in fact the opposite was the case as evidenced by his answer in his interview.

6.              Permission to appeal was granted by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Grant on May 16, 2018 who found it arguable that the Judge had erred by making an arguable mistake in fact and had carried that error into his subsequent credibility findings thereby rendering those findings unsafe.

7.              Mr McVeety accepted that there had been an error in law. He accepted that the Judge had made two erroneous findings regarding the appellant's relationships. In particular, he stated that the appellant had carried on his relationship which was contrary to what was contained in his interview at Q91 and he further erroneously found the appellant had launched into another relationship when in fact it was two years later. Whilst there were other sustainable findings he conceded that these findings would have materially affected the Judge's assessment on credibility.

8.              I agreed that there was an error in law and thereafter canvassed the most appropriate venue to deal with this issue. As evidence would have to be called and fresh findings made both representatives submitted the case should be remitted back to the First-tier Tribunal under Section 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 for a de novo hearing.

DECISION

9.              There is an error in law and I set aside the original decision and remitted the matter back to the First-tier Tribunal.

10.          I direct that an Urdu interpreter be booked for the substantive hearing and if any further evidence is to be served then it must be served in accordance with the 2014 Procedural Rules.

 

Signed Date 11/07/2018

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis