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 >> PA114762016 [2017] UKAITUR PA114762016 (27 September 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKAITUR/2017/PA114762016.html Cite as: [2017] UKAITUR PA114762016 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/11476/2016
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at Field House |
Decision & Reasons Promulgated |
On 11 September 2017 |
On 27 September 2017 |
|
|
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN
Between
SK
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation :
For the Appellant: Ms N. Nnamani, counsel instructed by Howe & Co, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr T. Melvin, Home Office Presenting Officer
__________________
DIRECTIONS
__________________
1. The appeal came before me for a resumed hearing on 11 September 2017. Mr Melvin indicated that, apart from the fact that the Respondent now accepted that the Appellant had worked at Baghram airbase, the further issues raised in the refusal decision as to the credibility of the Appellant's account remained at large and consequently he considered that the appeal would take at least 2 hours, despite the fact that it had been listed for 1 and a half hours, due to the need for extensive cross-examination.
2. In light of the fact that it was after 2pm and that two other substantive appeals remained outstanding in the list, I considered that it would be neither just nor fair for the appeal to proceed on what was overwhelmingly likely to be a part heard basis and it would be better to adjourn the appeal for a further hearing. Following submissions from Ms Nnamani I agreed it would be more appropriate for the appeal to be remitted back to the First tier Tribunal in order for a full hearing to be conducted.
3. The appeal is, therefore, remitted for a further hearing before the First tier Tribunal, to be listed on the first available date.
Rebecca Chapman
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Chapman
18 September 2017