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!



BAILII [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 >> PA117882019 [2021] UKAITUR PA117882019 (24 May 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2021/PA117882019.html
Cite as: [2021] UKAITUR PA117882019

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/11788/2019

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

 

 

Heard remotely at Field House

Decision & Reasons Promulgated

On 10 th May 2021

24 th May 2021

 

 

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FRANCES

 

 

Between

 

AHMED [E]

(anonymity direction NOT MADE )

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

 

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr J Greer, instructed by Broudie Jackson Canter

For the Respondent: Ms A Everett, Home Office Presenting Officer

 

This has been a remote hearing which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was video by Skype (V). A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents that I was referred to are in the bundles on the court file, the contents of which I have recorded. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. 

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Palestine born on 11 April 1978. He appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Raikes, promulgated on 23 October 2020, dismissing his appeal against the refusal of his protection claim on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.

2. Permission to appeal was granted by Resident First-tier Tribunal Judge Zucker on 14 November 2020 for the following reasons: "As the grounds recognise, the Upper Tribunal will be very slow to interfere with findings of fact. However, just as the cumulative effect of inconsistencies can lead to a claim not being accepted as credible, so too can the cumulative effect of errors in the findings lead to an error of law. The grant of permission should not be taken as an indication that there are errors in the findings. That will be a matter for the Upper Tribunal, but the grounds are arguable."

3. Ms Everett conceded that, taken cumulatively, the grounds demonstrated an error of law in the judge's credibility findings. It was agreed by the parties that the decision should be set aside and the appeal remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing.

4. I find that the judge erred in law in dismissing the Appellant's appeal and I set the decision aside. The appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal. None of the judge's findings are preserved.

 

Notice of Decision

Appeal allowed

 

 

J Frances

 

Signed Date: 10 May 2021

Upper Tribunal Judge Frances

 

 

TO THE RESPONDENT

FEE AWARD

I make no fee award. The appeal remains outstanding.

 

 

J Frances

 

Signed Date: 10 May 2021

Upper Tribunal Judge Frances

 

 

_____________________________________________________________

NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL RIGHTS

1. A person seeking permission to appeal against this decision must make a written application to the Upper Tribunal. Any such application must be received by the Upper Tribunal within the appropriate period after this decision was sent to the person making the application. The appropriate period varies, as follows, according to the location of the individual and the way in which the Upper Tribunal's decision was sent:

2. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is in the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, and is not in detention under the Immigration Acts, the appropriate period is 12 working days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

3. Where the person making the application is in detention under the Immigration Acts , the appropriate period is 7 working days (5 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

4. Where the person who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal is outside the United Kingdom at the time that the application for permission to appeal is made, the appropriate period is 38 days (10 working days, if the notice of decision is sent electronically).

5. A "working day" means any day except a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday.

6. The date when the decision is "sent' is that appearing on the covering letter or covering email


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2021/PA117882019.html