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 >> UI2024002917 [2024] UKAITUR UI2024002917 (23 September 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2024/UI2024002917.html Cite as: [2024] UKAITUR UI2024002917 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI- 2024-002917 First-tier Tribunal Nos: PA/52398/2023 LP/00605/2024 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
On the 23rd September 2024
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN
Between
HH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Mr A Khan, Counsel, instructed by Morden Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Ms A Nolan, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard at Field House on 6 September 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 the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
DECISION AND REASONS
1. This decision, which I give orally, will be brief because the parties are in agreement that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (by JFTT Cohen) should be set aside and the case remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be made afresh with no findings preserved.
2. The appellant is a citizen of Vietnam who claims to face a risk of persecution on account of her religious and political activity. Amongst other things, she claims to have been arrested and detained on several occasions. She adduced three summonses to corroborate her account.
3. As acknowledged in the respondent's Rule 24 response, the judge did not refer to the summonses. The Rule 24 response concedes this amounts to a legal error, stating at para. 5:
"This error infects the FTTJ's findings on previous risk and risk on return and constitutes a material error of law".
4. Ms Nolan maintained the position in the Rule 24 response. Both she and Mr Khan agreed that the case should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided afresh.
Notice of Decision
5. As agreed by the parties, the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard afresh by a different judge with no findings preserved.
D. Sheridan
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber
17 September 2024
