IA014762016

For the Appellant: Mr D Coleman, Counsel instructed by Lee Valley Solicitors Ltd

I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.

The Judge allowed the appeal because he found at paragraph 17 of the Decision that the Appellant was a credible witness and that he had a family and private life in the United Kingdom. The Judge went on to find that there were very significant obstacles to the Appellant reintegrating into Libyan society and so allowed the appeal under the provisions of paragraph 276ADE(1)(vi) of HC 395. The Judge followed the format given in Razgar [2004] UKHL 27 and decided that the decision of the Respondent to refuse the Appellant indefinite leave to remain was not proportionate.

At the hearing before me, Ms Ahmed argued that the Judge had erred in law in coming to this conclusion. She argued as a narrow issue that the Judge had failed to give his reasons for his finding that the Appellant had a family and a private life in the United Kingdom. He did not state the details of the Appellant's private life, nor with whom he enjoyed a family life in the United Kingdom. However, in response to an enquiry from me, Ms Ahmed said that the Appellant's family life had not been disputed in the Notice of Decision.

In response, Mr Coleman submitted that there had been no such error of law. In his witness statement at paragraph 10, which the Judge had found to be credible, the Appellant gave details of his family and private life. In any event, it was accepted by the Respondent that all returnees were at risk on return to Libya and referred to the decision in ZM (Article 15(c)) Libya CG [2017] UKUT 263 . Therefore any error of law as argued by the Respondent was not material.