2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at

Dec 7, 2018 - This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier. Tribunal Judge Cohen promulgated on 20/09/2018, which dismissed t...

0 downloads 0 Views 125KB Size

Recommend Documents


2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Oct 1, 2018 - Anonymity. The anonymity direction made by the First-tier Tribunal is rescinded or revoked. Representation: For the appellant: Ms K Pal, Senior ...

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
May 2, 2018 - The appellant is an Albanian national born on 4 March ... United Kingdom since as long as 2015 and that there had been ample opportunity in ...

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
24 Oct 2018 - Appeal Number: PA/05735/2018. THE IMMIGRATION ACTS .... being completely wrong, there is no error of law, nor is it an error of law.

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Nov 16, 2018 - The Appellant was born on 1 July 1984 and is a national of Iraq. On 17 ... AAH (Iraqi Kurds – internal relocation) Iraq CG [2018] UKUT 00212.

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Oct 19, 2018 - was employed as a driver for a member of the Somali General administration in the ports of Mogadishu. 2. The decision of the judge was said to ...

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
Nov 28, 2018 - For the Respondent: Mr. M. Sowerby of counsel, instructed by Quintessence Solicitors. DECISION AND REASONS. BACKGROUND TO THE ...

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
The essence of the Appellant's claim is that he is from Mosul in Iraq, is a. Sunni Muslim, of Kurdish ethnicity, who speaks Bahdini. He claims that he fled Iraq in ...

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
RUBEN [C]. Respondent. Representation: For the Appellant: Mr J McGirr, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer. For the Respondent: Miss A Radford, instructed ...

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
3 Nov 2016 - refuse her application for leave to remain in the UK under Appendix FM of .... Mr Bramble accepted, in light of this letter, that the certificate the.

2018 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at
inter alia as follows: “2. The grounds argue that the judge .... And at [2] Moses LJ said inter alia “the instant appeal is yet another unfortunate example where the ...

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/09309/2018

Appeal Number:

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House

Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 9 January 2019

On 7 December 2018 Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE Between SHAHAB KARIMI

(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)

Appellant and SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent Representation: For the Appellant:

Ms R Popal (counsel) instructed by Barnes Harrild & Dyer solicitors For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer DECISION AND REASONS 1. I have considered whether any parties require the protection of an anonymity direction. No anonymity direction was made previously in respect of this Appellant. Having considered all the circumstances and evidence I do not consider it necessary to make an anonymity direction.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

Appeal Number: PA/09309/2018

2. This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Cohen promulgated on 20/09/2018, which dismissed the Appellant’s protection appeal on all grounds. Background 3. The Appellant was born on 11/03/1999 and is a national of Iran. The appellant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his political opinion. On 13/07/2018 the Secretary of State refused the Appellant’s protection claim. The Judge’s Decision 4. The Appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. First-tier Tribunal Judge Cohen (“the Judge”) dismissed the appeal against the Respondent’s decision. Grounds of appeal were lodged and on 24/10/2018 Judge Boyes gave permission to appeal stating inter alia “2. The grounds assert that the Judge did not consider the Facebook material correctly and secondly, was wrong to conclude as he did in relation to the ethnicity argument. Thirdly, was procedurally unfair in relation to a drawing (?) And erred in requiring the appellant to show corroboration. 3. Ground 3 is arguable. I do not know on what basis the court thought it appropriate to conduct its own investigation and set up its own experiments, on the hoof, then criticise the appellant thereafter. 4. Permission is granted on all the grounds however it is ground 3 which is the shining light.”

Hearing 5. For the appellant, Ms Popal told me that the respondent served a rule 24 notice in which the respondent concedes the appeal and asked that the case be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard of new. Mr Walker did not have a copy of the rule 24 notice, but on the court file there is a rule 24 notice dated 19 November 2018 which says “The respondent does not oppose the appellant’s application for permission to appeal and invites the tribunal to remit the matter to the First-tier in order for sustainable findings to be made.” 6. Mr Walker told me that he could not oppose the appeal. He described [32] of the decision as “an unusual approach to take”. He told me that the appeal is no longer opposed and asked me to remit this case to the Firsttier Tribunal to be determined of new. Analysis 7. It is clear from [32] of the decision that the Judge adopted an inquisitorial approach and then, having done so, reached findings which are not properly explained. [32] of the decision contains conclusions drawn from the Judge’s own inquisition. The conclusions that the Judge 2

Appeal Number: PA/09309/2018

reaches are inadequately reasoned. The procedure that the Judge adopted is unfair. The appellant had no notice of the test he was to face - created by the Judge on the spur of the moment. There is no evidence of the qualifications the Judge has to ponder the artistic character and quality of the drawing that he forced the appellant to produce. 8. The result is that the Judge’s findings cannot stand because they are not supported by adequate reasoning and because the proceedings were tainted by unfairness. Those are material errors of law because the Judge places [32] of the decision at the heart of the assessment of the appellant’s credibility. I therefore set the decision aside Remittal to First-Tier Tribunal 9. Under Part 3 paragraph 7.2(b) of the Upper Tribunal Practice Statement of the 25th of September 2012 the case may be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal if the Upper Tribunal is satisfied that: (a) the effect of the error has been to deprive a party before the First-tier Tribunal of a fair hearing or other opportunity for that party’s case to be put to and considered by the First-tier Tribunal; or (b) the nature or extent of any judicial fact finding which is necessary in order for the decision in the appeal to be re-made is such that, having regard to the overriding objective in rule 2, it is appropriate to remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal. 10. In this case I have determined that the case should be remitted because a new fact-finding exercise is required. None of the Judge’s findings are preserved. A complete re-hearing is necessary. 11. I remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Taylor House to be heard before any First-tier Judge other than Judge Cohen. Decision The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is tainted by material errors of law. I set aside the Judge’s decision promulgated on 20 September 2018. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be determined of new.

Signed Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Doyle

Date 11 December 2018

3

Life Enjoy

" Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced! "

Get in touch

Social

© Copyright 2013 - 2019 DOKUMENTIX.COM - All rights reserved.