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

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER	Case No: UI-2024-005731
	First-tier Tribunal No: PA/60504/2023 LP/04903/2024

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On 25 February 2025

 

Before

 

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS

 

Between

 

SK

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation :

For the Appellant: Mr S. Kerr, Counsel instructed by Karis Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr S. Walker, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

 

Heard at Field House on 14 February 2025

 

Order Regarding Anonymity

 

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Appellant and her children are 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 the appellant and/or her children. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court. This order is made due to the international protection issues in the appeal.

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction

1.        The Appellant is a national of Albania, born in 1996. On 4 February 2018 she made a claim for international protection and human rights to the Respondent which was refused on 18 October 2023.

2.        The Appellant's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed by Judge Sweet (hereafter "the Judge") by way of a decision dated 1 September 2024.

3.        Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on all grounds on 16 December 2024.

The error of law hearing

4.        At the error of law hearing Mr Walker indicated preliminarily that he accepted the Appellant's core complaints as detailed in the grounds of appeal: namely that the Judge had given insufficient reasons for rejecting the credibility of the international protection claim; the finding that no Convention reason had been established and in respect of the Judge's assessment of Article 8 ECHR.

5.        I indicated to both representatives that I fully agreed with Mr Walker's concessions and the thrust of the Appellant's grounds of challenge. I therefore explained that I would set aside the decision of the Judge in its entirety and concurred with the representatives that the matter should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal on the basis that the appeal required full fact-finding.

Findings and reasons

6.        Although the representatives agree that the decision should be set-aside for material error, it is nonetheless important to explain why the Judge erred and why no findings can be preserved.

7.        In respect of the international protection claim, it is apparent that the Judge sought to dispose of the credibility and Convention reason issues in a single paragraph (at §15). In this paragraph the Judge simply states that the Appellant's claim is not made out at the relevant standard of proof due to inconsistencies in her evidence (of which the Judge gives one example) and then the corollary finding that the Appellant's claim is not based upon a Convention reason.

8.        The duty upon judges is clear: a judge must make sufficiently detailed findings in respect of issues which are materially in dispute between the parties, as per South Bucks District Council v Porter (2) [2004] UKHL 33, [2004] at §26:

"The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration."

9.        I accept the Appellant's argument that the Judge did not give adequate reasons for rejecting her explanations for the relevant credibility issues (including the section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 point) raised by the Respondent and that this is a material error.

10.    Furthermore, I also find that the Judge failed to explain why the Appellant's core claim of fear of being trafficked into sexual exploitation does not constitute a Convention reason bearing in mind the weight of Country Guidance on this issue, see for instance in TD and AD (Trafficked women) (CG) [2016] UKUT 92 (IAC).

11.    Additionally, the Judge's extremely brief conclusion that the Appellant would receive a sufficiency of protection from the authorities (at §18) is without any explanation and does not engage with the Appellant's arguments in the skeleton argument (and associated country evidence) that she would not receive the protection she required (at paras. 25 -33).

12.    In respect of Article 8 ECHR I also find that the Judge's conclusions at §17 are wholly inadequate. Having accepted that the Appellant's partner plays a parental role in the upbringing of the children, the Judge then concluded that it would not be disproportionate for the Appellant and her three children to return to Albania without him.

13.    In that reasoning there is clearly no engagement with the best interests of the children when looking at the proposition of them being separated from their father in the UK; the Judge's later finding that the children's best interests are to remain with their mother (§18) is insufficiently reasoned under the circumstances.

14.    Equally the Judge does not engage with the Country Guidance in TD and AD that a lone woman returning to Albania with illegitimate children would face difficulties because of societal opprobrium against children born out of wedlock. This is not necessarily decisive of the Article 8 ECHR appeal but could have made a difference if the Judge had directed themselves to this key point.

15.    I also add that the Judge has failed to carry out an assessment of whether there would be very significant obstacles to the Appellant's reintegration under para. 276ADE(1)(vi) of the Rules contrary to authority such as TZ (Pakistan) and PG (India) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1109.

Notice of Decision

I find that the Judge materially erred in law and the decision should be set aside in its entirety; no findings of fact can be preserved.

 

Remittal to the First-tier Tribunal

The appeal should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for full fact-finding to be heard by a judge other than Judge Sweet.

 

 

I P Jarvis

 

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

19 February 2025