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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03011/2014

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Decision Promulgated
On 10th November 2014	On 21st January 2015

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

 

 

Between

 

S R

(Anonymity Direction Made)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr Paramjorthy, instructed by Vasuki Solicitors

For the Respondent: Ms J Isherwood, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

The Appellant

1.             The appellant is citizen of Sri Lanka born on 19^th February 1977 and he appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 29^th April 2014 to remove him from the United Kingdom by way of directions under Section 10 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999 following the refusal of international protection.

2.             Judge of the First Tier Tribunal Symes refused the appellant’s appeal on all grounds.

3.             The appellant made an application for permission to appeal and this was granted by First Tier Tribunal Judge Brunnen.

4.             The Judge rested his rejection of the appellant’s credibility in part on discrepancies in the evidence and recorded such discrepancies at [21] of the determination. However the judge failed at [21] of the determination to take account of or make findings in respect of the appellant’s explanation for the perceived discrepancy in relation to who accompanied him in travelling to Chennai. The Record of Proceedings indeed acknowledges that the appellant gave an explanation as to the discrepancy in the travel arrangements. Further, the Judge fails to acknowledge the representations that the bribe alleged to have been paid that the appellant’s evidence throughout was not inconsistent [see AIR 95]. These errors were relevant to important factors in the Judge’s overall assessment which in turn led to an adverse credibility finding against the appellant.

5.             When approaching the medical evidence the judge cited JL (medical reports-credibility) China [2013] UKUT 145 (IAC) but stated at [25] that the medical evidence failed to acknowledge that the appellant’s account was challenged by the Secretary of State which undermined Dr Lingam’s view. In fact the medical report acknowledged the Secretary of State’s refusal letter. The Judge also appeared to reject the evidence as it relied ‘heavily on the explanation tendered to him by the appellant for his scars and overall I do not consider that this is the kind of report that can outweigh the concerns I have raised above’. As the findings in respect of the appellant’s credibility, cited at paragraph 4 above, are flawed, these must in turn taint the Judge’s findings in respect of the appellant’s medical evidence.

6.             There was further challenge in respect of the sur place findings and in relation to overall scrutiny of the evidence because, despite dismissing the claim, at [33] the judge found that the appellant had a well founded fear of persecution. The latter appears to be a typographical error but as I have found an error of law in respect of the findings on credibility I set aside the decision in its entirety.

7.             The matter should be returned to the First Tier Tribunal for a hearing de novo because of the nature and extent of the findings to be made.

8.             The matter is listed for 29^th April 2014 and a Tamil interpreter is to be present. Any further evidence is to be served on both the opposing party and the Tribunal at least 14 days prior to the substantive hearing.

 

 

 

Signed Date 10^th November 2014

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington