BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[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 >> PA97732017 [2018] UKAITUR PA097732017 (1 March 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2018/PA097732017.html Cite as: [2018] UKAITUR PA97732017, [2018] UKAITUR PA097732017 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal no: PA/ 09773/2017
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Promulgated | |
On 27.02.2018 |
On 01.03.2018 |
Before:
Upper Tribunal Judge John FREEMAN and
deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Satvinder JUSS
Between:
Mohd . SAIDUR [R]
appellant
and
respondent
Representation :
For the appellant: Mr Abu Reza, solicitor, JKR Solicitors
For the respondent: Mr S Kotas
DECISION AND REASONS
This is an appeal, by the , against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Owusu Abebrese), sitting at Taylor House on 1 November 2017, to an asylum and human rights appeal by a citizen of Bangladesh, born 1986, who claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution there as a homosexual.
2. The judge comprehensively rejected the appellant's evidence about being a homosexual in the first place. So far as he relied on his delay in making a claim, he was fully entitled to do so; but that could not be the only reason, where there was any evidence to support it, as to which see JT (Cameroon) [2008] EWCA Civ 878.
3. The evidence before the judge is listed at paragraph 5 of the grounds of appeal. The judge's reasons for rejecting it are in the last sentence of his paragraph 20, and the last two of 22. While there would be nothing wrong with them as general conclusions, fairness required that he should explain how he reached them, which he did not do.
4. Mr Kotas accepted this unsatisfactory feature of the decision under appeal, which leaves us with no alternative but the following:
Fresh hearing before First-tier Tribunal, not Judge Abebrese
(a judge of the Upper Tribunal)
Date: 01 March 2018