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 >> UI2022006655 [2024] UKAITUR UI2022006655 (16 January 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2024/UI2022006655.html Cite as: [2024] UKAITUR UI2022006655 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI- 2022-006655
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/50826/2021 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
16 th January 2024
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE
Between
SS
(anonymity order made)
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mrs B. Jones, Counsel instructed by S.Satha and Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Ms S Lecointe, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 3 January 2024
Order Regarding Anonymity
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant is granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the Appellant likely to lead members of the public to identify him . Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant is a national of Sri Lanka born in 1983. He appeals with permission against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Hanbury) to dismiss his appeal on protection and human rights grounds.
2. The appeal is unopposed. The Secretary of State invites the Upper Tribunal to set the decision of Judge Hanbury aside and to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard de novo by a judge other than Judge Hanbury. I agree. The fundamental error, briefly stated, was that Judge Hanbury's Devaseelan analysis was flawed for a failure to appreciate that when Judge Sacks had made his decision he did not have available to him the psychiatric evidence that now sheds significant light on the Appellant's evidence about his claimed experiences in Sri Lanka.
Decisions
3. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside.
4. The decision in the appeal will be remade following a de novo hearing before a Judge other than Judge Hanbury.
5. There is an order for anonymity.
Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
11 th January 2024
