Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06506/2013


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Newport
Determination Sent
On 20 March 2014
On 16 April 2014




Before

MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB

Between

YD
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr M McGarvey of McGarvey Immigration and Asylum Practitioners Limited
For the Respondent: Mr I Richards, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REMITTAL


1. This appeal is subject to an anonymity order made by the First-tier Tribunal pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/230). Neither party invited us to rescind the order and we continue it pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698).

2. The appellant is a citizen of Guinea who was born on 17 December 1991. He claims to have arrived in the United Kingdom sometime in 2010. He claimed asylum on 13 June 2010. On 24 June 2013, the Secretary of State refused the appellant's application for asylum. On 25 June 2013, the Secretary of State made a decision to remove the appellant as an illegal entrant to Guinea.

3. The appellant appealed that decision to the First-tier Tribunal. In a determination promulgated on 23 August 2013, Judge Britton dismissed the appellant's appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds. Judge Britton made an adverse credibility finding and concluded that the appellant had fabricated his claim based upon his sexual orientation and that he had been trafficked to the UK. Consequently, he did not accept that the appellant would be at risk on return to Guinea.

4. The appellant sought permission to appeal on a number of grounds. On 18 September 2013, the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Landes) granted the appellant permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that it was arguable that the Judge's finding that the appellant had not established he was a victim of trafficking and so at risk of being re-trafficked was legally flawed.

5. In her Rule 24 response, the Secretary of State indicated that she did not oppose the appellant's application and invited the Upper Tribunal to determine the appellant's appeal afresh. Thus, the appeal was listed before us.

6. At the hearing, Mr Richards conceded that the First-tier Tribunal's decision could not stand and that fresh findings on the evidence had to be made.

7. Consequently, we conclude that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law and it is agreed that that decision must be set aside.

8. Having regard to the nature and extent of the fact finding required to determine this appeal, and having regard to para 7.2 of the Senior President's Practice Statements, we remit this appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo rehearing before a Judge other than Judge Britton or Judge Landes.

Signed


A Grubb
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Date: