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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: UI-2022-002163

PA/51358/2020; IA/09862/2021

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On the 12 September 2022	On the 17 October 2022

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

 

 

Between

 

D B

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)

Appellant

and

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Ms K Reid, instructed by Marsh & Partners

For the Respondent: Ms S Lecointe, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1.              Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribun al Pro cedure (Upper Tribun al) R ules 2008, th e appella nt is granted anon ymity. No-one shall pu blis h or reve al any inf orm ation, in cluding the n ame o r address of th e ap pellant, likel y to lead members o f th e public to ide ntify the app ellant. F ailu re to com ply with this orde r could amount to a co ntempt of court. I make this order because the appellant seeks international protection and publicity might create a risk to his safety.

2.              This is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing him asylum or other form of international protection.

3.              Both parties before me accept that there are significant errors in the determination.

4.              First, it is not clear that the judge has applied the lower "real risk" standard of proof to the assessment of the asylum claim. He may have done but this is a matter on which there should be clarity.

5.              Possible of more concern is that the judge has not explained how he was able to conclude that the appellant could be returned safely to Albania when it is an established fact that the appellant is a victim of trafficking and, apparently, established that his mother and father in different ways were involved in trafficking taking place. It makes no sense to conclude without explanation that he could be returned to the influence of his family and be safe. Similarly is it not explained how he could establish himself independently in Albania given the finding that have been made about his circumstances.

6.              I wish to make it plain that this Decision is not a ruling, or even an indication, that the appellant needs protection but it is finding that the conclusion that he does not need protection has not been explained adequately.

7.              These deficiencies necessarily impact on the Article 8 finding. Again, Ms Lecointe accepted that it was remarkable that the judge did not even accept that removal would be an interference with the private and family life of the appellant. It might be that removal is proportionate and justified but is very hard to see it is not an interference, so that is something else which, if right, is not explained.

8.              Both parties agree that the deficiencies of this decision are such that they can only be remedied by my ruling that there is an error of law, setting aside the decision and directing that the appeal be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal with no findings preserved.

 

Notice of Decision

9.              The First-tier Tribunal erred in law. I set aside its decision and direct that the appeal be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal.

 

Jonathan Perkins

Signed
Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal	Dated 20 September 2022