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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/08413/2018

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard at Field House	Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 18 March 2019	On 2 April 2019

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HILL QC

 

 

Between

 

J A

(anonymity direction MADE )

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Ms M Jackson, Counsel, instructed by Law Dale Solicitors

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

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

1. I make an anonymity direction (see below) in respect of this decision and that of the First-tier Tribunal where anonymity was not originally ordered.

2. This is an appeal from the decision of First-tier Judge Twydell, promulgated on 20 September 2018. The appellant is a citizen of Bangladesh. His appeal was dismissed on asylum grounds, humanitarian protection grounds and under human rights considerations, both within and outside the Immigration Rules.

3. The grounds of appeal seeking permission were expansively drawn and initially permission was refused. On a renewed application Upper Tribunal Judge Chalkley granted permission but on the limited basis identified by reference to paragraph 6 of the Grounds. This concerned a substantial corpus of background evidence that had been placed before the First-tier Tribunal, albeit none was referred to by the judge.

4. A skeleton argument was prepared by Ms Jackson of Counsel, who now acts of the appellant. This developed, in a rather more coherent and attractive way, the matter for determination in this appeal, helpfully setting out the background together with an analysis of the approach adopted by the judge. It also identified the documentary material which was before the First-tier Tribunal dealing with the social and political situation in Bangladesh. The skeleton argument took as its main focus the single ground on which permission was granted but, perhaps inevitably, ventured a little further, for which I make no criticism.

5. Ms Cunha, who acts for the Secretary of State, accepts that the decision was inadequate in that it failed to make reference to any of the background material that had been before the First-tier Tribunal. She contends, however, that although that may have been an error of law, it did not infect credibility assessment and findings of fact which could nonetheless be preserved.

6. This is not a submission which I can accept. First, the judge seemed to regard the appellant's evidence as inherently implausible, in part because it was not analysed in the context of, and by reference to, the background country material. In the circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that the appellant's evidence was subject to proper judicial analysis when the credibility assessment was made.

7. Secondly, as one proceeds through the decision, taking it sequentially in terms of the judge making findings as to what involvement the appellant may or may not have had with the authorities in Bangladesh, the failure to engage with the background country material renders all subsequent conclusions questionable and incapable of being sustained. Anxious scrutiny is lacking throughout.

8. It would not be just or appropriate to preserve any part of the judge's findings, when there has a fundamental error regarding background country material, going to the heart of this decision.

9. This is inevitably a case, regrettable though the additional delay will be, that needs to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by another judge. In the circumstances, having found an error of law, I set aside the decision and I remit the appeal for a rehearing.

Notice of Decision

(1)           An error of law having been found, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.

(2)           The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by judge other than Judge Twydell.

(3)           No findings of fact are preserved.

(4)           An anonymity direction is made as follows.

 

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

 

 

Signed Mark Hill Date 27 March 2019

 

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hill QC