Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2024-03-13, UI-2022-006665
| Appeal Number | UI-2022-006665 |
| Hearing Date | 07 March 2024 |
| Date | 13 March 2024 |
| Published date | 28 March 2024 |
| Status | Unreported |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
Case No: UI-2022-006665
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51026/2021
|
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER |
Case No: UI-2022-006665 |
|
|
First-tier Tribunal No: PA/51026/2021 |
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Decision & Reasons Issued:
On 13th of March 2024
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PICKUP
Between
GDP
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S Iqbal, instructed by Birnberg Peirce Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr C Avery, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
Heard remotely at Field House on 7 March 2024
Order Regarding Anonymity
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, [the appellant] (and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified) 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 (and/or other person). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.
DECISION AND REASONS
-
By the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Parkes) dated 21.9.22, the appellant, a national of Sri Lanka who came to the UK in 2019 ostensibly as a seaman contractor and claimed asylum in 2020, has been granted permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Lloyd-Smith) promulgated 27.7.22, dismissing his appeal against the respondent’s decision of 11.2.21 to refuse his claim for international protection.
-
In summary, the grounds first argue that the First-tier Tribunal failed to consider the appellant’s vulnerability when conducting the credibility assessment, in particular in failing to consider to what extent discrepancies could be attributed to his mental state. It is also submitted that the judge erred in analysis of the appellant’s account of his departure from Sri Lanka and journey to the UK in relation to conclusions to be drawn from his possession of a passport. Finally, it is suggested that the judge made “numerous other errors in her credibility assessment,” which render the First-tier Tribunal Judge’s overall conclusions unsafe and cumulatively amount to an error of law.
-
In granting permission, Judge Parkes considered it arguable that the First-tier Tribunal only considered the appellant’s vulnerability with regard to adjustments made at the hearing and not in the context of the credibility assessment. “It is not obvious that the judge had in mind the guidance in the Joint Presidential Guidance Note, number 2, of 2010 or AM (Afghanistan) [2017] EWCA Civ 1123.”
-
At the outset of the hearing before me, Mr Avery conceded that there was an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s failure to factor in the appellant’s mental health issues into the credibility assessment. In those circumstances, Ms Iqbal agreed that it was unnecessary for the Upper Tribunal to consider the other grounds of appeal.
-
Although indicating that the appeal would be allowed, I formally reserved my decision and reasons to be given in writing, which I now do.
-
At [10] of the decision, the judge noted that the appellant was a vulnerable witness because of his mental health, “and therefore appropriate allowances were made in relation to the questioning and availability of breaks if required.” This was repeated at [27], where the judge noted that doctor’s report found the appellant to be fit to attend the hearing and give evidence.
-
From [19] of the decision, the judge identified “numerous inconsistencies that have affected my assessment of the credibility of the appellant’s account.” I need not rehearse them here as they are set out under [20] of the decision. As the grounds assert, there was no indication that the judge considered what if any impact the appellant’s vulnerability may have had on his evidence, in interview, speaking to the medical expert, or at the appeal hearing, “and to what extent purported discrepancies in his evidence could be attributed to his poor mental state”. The judge did accept Dr Dhumad’s diagnoses of recurrent depressive episode and PTSD. The grounds assert that in the appellant’s skeleton argument and in submissions made on his behalf at the appeal hearing the Tribunal was invited to consider his vulnerability when assessing his substantive evidence.
-
As the grounds submit at [7], there should at least have been some reference to or consideration of whether and to what extend the appellant’s vulnerability and mental illness impacted on her view of (the) inconsistencies”. At [13.6], the expert report found “evidence of some cognitive impairment, he has poor concentration and memory difficulties, and he has difficulties recalling past events chronologically; this is common in anxiety and depression”.
At [21], the judge found the appellant to have been very vague about his passport issued in 2017 and at [22] considered that as he was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial