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

 

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00615/2015

 

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester IAC	Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 1 st April 2016	On 11 th April 2016

 

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE COKER

 

Between

 

 

ALI IBRAHIM DHABAREY

(no anonymity order made)

Appellant

And

 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

 

Representation :

 

For the Appellant: Mr J Nicholson, counsel, instructed by Broudie Jackson & Canter

For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

 

1.     The appellant was granted permission to appeal on the grounds it was arguable that the judge erred in law in adopting the role of inquisitor; failed to give adequate reasons for his findings on the appellant's clan membership and that the judge's findings on relocation to Mogadishu were unreasoned and speculative.

 

2.     Although the respondent had filed a Rule 24 notice this did not address the main challenge to the judge's decision with regard to the clan membership and lack of reasoning save to assert, in essence that the judge's reasoning was adequate.

 

3.     It is most unfortunate that although the judge set out the italicised words from MOJ & others (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 442 (IAC), he failed to address save in general terms the matters raised. Given the findings made which appear to be either unreasoned or unsupported by evidence and the failure to make findings on relevant matters this decision is plainly inadequate and vitiated by significant errors of law.

 

4.     I set aside the decision to be remade.

 

5.     When I have set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, s.12 (2) of the TCEA 2007 requires me to remit the case to the First-tier with directions or remake it for ourselves. Where the error of law is such as in this case and the facts are disputed or unclear I conclude that the decision should be remitted to a First-tier judge to determine the appeal.

 

6.     If in so far as the appellant seeks to file additional documentary evidence, no doubt the appellant will make the appropriate application to the First-tier Tribunal.

Conclusions:

 

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.

 

I set aside the decision and remit the appeal to be heard afresh by a First-tier Tribunal judge (not judge D Dickinson), no findings of fact preserved.

 

 

 

Date 1 ^st April 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Coker