IA106962009

It has already been found that the appellant is entitled to Article 3 protection on the grounds of his mental health, that matter having been decided by Upper Tribunal Judge Latter in a determination dated 8 March 2011.

However, the appellant also maintains that he is entitled to protection under Article (15)(b) of the Qualification Directive (QD) and qualifies for a grant of humanitarian protection (HP).

In a determination dated 26 June 2012, Upper Tribunal Judge Eshun found that the appellant was excluded from HP and also did not make out a substantive claim for HP. In a Consent Order dated 4 June 2013 the challenge to Judge Eshun�s decision to the Court of Appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Upper Tribunal to re-decide the issues of exclusion from and entitlement to HP. Thus the matter came before us.

There are two outstanding issues that we are required to resolve. The first is whether the appellant is excluded from HP on account of having committed �a serious crime�. The second is whether he qualifies for HP at all.

The terms of the Consent Order dated 4 June 2013 and Statement of Reasons attached thereto were somewhat opaque as to the latter issue being before us. However, the grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal challenged Judge Eshun�s findings on the appellant�s HO claim. Also, there would have been no purpose in the remittal from the Court of Appeal had the issue of the appellant�s substantive qualification for HP not been at large as well as the exclusion issue. Ms Holmes agreed with Mr Armstrong that the question of whether the appellant qualified for HP was before us.