![]() |
[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 >> PA054692017 [2018] UKAITUR PA054692017 (26 February 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/PA054692017.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR PA54692017, [2018] UKAITUR PA054692017 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05469/2017
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Glasgow |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
on 21 February 2018 |
on 26 February 2018 |
|
|
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN
Between
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Appellant
and
J
Respondent
For the appellant: Mrs M O'Brien, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
For the respondent: Mr R B Gibb, of Duheric & Co, Solicitors
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The parties are as above, but the rest of this decision refers to them as they were in the FtT.
2. The SSHD appeals against the decision of FtT Judge Kempton, promulgated on 28 August 2017.
3. The grounds cite ¶22 of the decision, where the judge found delay of several years in making the claim seriously damaging to credibility, by reference to section 8 of the 2004 Act. The grounds go on:
"At no point in the ... credibility findings and reasons at ¶23 - 32 does [the judge] refer to s. 8 or make any reference to the appellant's conduct damaging his credibility. This failure amounts to a material error of law."
4. Mrs O'Brien submissions were along the lines of the grounds.
5. I did not call upon Mr Gibb in reply.
6. Decisions are to be read fairly and as a whole. The judge explained clearly and extensively at ¶23 - 31 why she found the evidence for the appellant persuasive. The SSHD suggests no error in any of her several sensible reasons. She had taken account at ¶22, as damaging to the appellant's credibility, of behaviour to which s.8 applied. Her final conclusion was reached in the round. Nothing further was required.
7. The SSHD's appeal is dismissed. The decision of the FtT shall stand.
8. The FtT made an anonymity direction. The matter was not addressed in the UT. Anonymity has been preserved.
21 February 2018
Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman