UI2023003158

             The appellant's case was summarised by the judge at [14] of the determination as follows:

             The judge dismissed the appeal against refusal of asylum and refusal to grant leave to remain under Article 8 commenting: "I acknowledge that the appellant is close to satisfying the 20-year Rule, and I recognise that the appellant will probably be able to make an application for leave to remain on the grounds of 20 years' continuous residence before he is removed. But this does not detract from the public interest in upholding at this stage the refusal of leave to remain on private life grounds."

             In consequence of the grant of permission the matter came before me to determine in the first place where 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 relation to article 8, the judge had dealt with that in a perfunctory manner. At the time of the appeal hearing the appellant was three months short of fulfilling his 20 years when he would be able to make a claim for leave to remain on that basis. The appellant was suffering from cognitive disorder and that was confirmed in medical evidence. While it was not necessarily the case that the appellant would be bound to have succeeded the judge did not give proper consideration to the issue of the appellant's length of residence.

         Finally in reply counsel argued that the various anti-government organisations operated as a conglomerate so when individuals referred to them, they said they were not a stand-alone organisation. The expert had said he had spoken to someone at the police station to verify the documents and he was careful about which ones he had looked at. It was not true to say he had had no response from anyone..