UI2023003261

      The appellant appealed against that decision on two grounds. Firstly the appellant argued that the judge had paid insufficient attention to the documents provided in support of the appeal, There was only the brief reference at [28] of the determination, see paragraph 3 above. Secondly the judge had not considered adequately or at all the appellants sur place activities which the appellant had been asked about during the hearing. Permission to appeal on both grounds was given by the First-tier Tribunal.

      In consequence of the grant of permission the matter came before me to determine in the first place whether there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal such that it fell to be set aside. If there was then I would make directions on the rehearing of the appeal. If there was not the decision at first instance would stand.

  In conclusion counsel for the appellant said that the respondent in her submissions had analyse the evidence in the case. If the judge had done that the determination would have stood up to scrutiny but, referring to [28], the two short sentences used by the judge in that paragraph meant that it was not possible to glean from them why the appellant had lost the case.

  The challenge made by the appellant to the determination in this case is essentially a reasons based challenge. The appellant argues that the judge did not give sufficient reasons for his credibility findings and in particular why he placed no weight on the documents supplied by the appellant. The respondent challenged that documentation on the basis that the documents were inconsistent with earlier versions of the appellant's account and did not in any event give any detail to support the appellant's account.

  The appellant's argument is in two parts. Firstly that the judge had not considered the documents or given reasons why he placed no weight on them and secondly the judge had not considered the appellant's claim to be at risk upon return because of sur place activities in this country. Whilst it is correct that the judge at [28] is concise, that paragraph needs to be read in conjunction with the cross-examination of the appellant as recorded in the determination. The judge was well aware of the existence of the documents, see [6] and [10] and referred to them.