(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/09038/2018
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard in Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 26 July 2019
On 7 August 2019
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHANA
For the Appellant: Ms E Sanders of Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms A Fijiwala, Senior Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a national of Somalia born on 13 September 2000 and was aged 17 when he entered the United Kingdom and 18 at the date of the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal. He appealed against the decision of the respondent dated 13 July 2018 to refuse to grant him asylum and humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom.
2. Permission to appeal was at first refused by First-tier Tribunal Judge Andrew in a decision dated 1 April 2019. Subsequently permission to appeal was granted by Upper Tribunal Judge Martin on 24 June 2019, stating that it is arguable that the judge's intemperate and repeated use of the word "alleged" in the decision gives the impression that the judge had predetermined the appeal.
3. The First-tier Tribunal Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal asylum and humanitarian protection grounds including Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The first ground of appeal is the allegation that the judge by using the word "alleged" in his decision had predetermined the issues. I do not find that this ground was made out. The word "alleged" in the context of the decisions of the First Tier Tribunal, normally means what the appellant claims to be his case.
4. However, having said that, and on a very careful perusal of the decision, I have found it difficult to find a particular paragraph of the decision where the appellant's case is set out. It was argued before me by Ms Sanders that there is a lack of neutrality in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. Having considered the decision I find that whilst the Judge has set out the respondent's refusal letter in detail, there has not been an even-handedness by setting out the case for the appellant.
5. The Judge makes findings at paragraph 65 in point form, home which he found went against the appellant's credibility. However, the linkage between the various credibility findings and to the exact issue it related to is not clear. As an example is that the judge found in respect of the medical evidence that the expert had not been called to give evidence and placed little reliance on it as a consequence. It is clear that in this jurisdiction experts are not called to give evidence both by the appellant or by the respondent.
6. The Judge also noted that the bullet wound did not have an exit point based on the appellant's evidence that the bullet went through his flesh and took this evidence as an adverse credibility point against the appellant. The judge did not refer to the evidence of the doctor who clearly explained that the subjective view of the appellant as to how the bullet entered or exited his body is not reliable.
7. Ms Fijiwala made a very gallant attempt to stitch together the decision and I find some of her points were very reasonable but, given the potentially severe and catastrophic consequences to the appellant, especially at his age, to be sent back to Somalia, the evidence must be scrutinised very carefully.
8. I therefore find that there has been a material error of law in the decision of the judge in respect of his consideration of the evidence and I remit the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal for it to be heard de novo before any judge other than Judge Wright.
No anonymity direction is made
Signed Date 30 July 2019
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chana