UI2023002423

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity because the case involves a protection claim. No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .

             The appellant appealed the respondent's decision dated 26 July 2019 to refuse a protection and human rights claim.

             I have considered the First-tier Tribunal decision, the evidence that was before the First-tier Tribunal, the grounds of appeal, and the submissions made at the hearing, before coming to a decision in this appeal. It is not necessary to summarise the oral submissions because they are a matter of record, but I will refer to any relevant arguments in my findings.

             I accept, as did Mr Melvin, that the translations of the police and hospital documents originally submitted to the Home Office may have contained an error in stating that the appellant was subjected to an attempted 'rape' rather than an attempted 'kidnap'. The account given in interview was consistent with the update translation of 'kidnap' and it seems that the appellant was surprised when it was put to him at the First-tier Tribunal hearing that it said that there was an attempted 'rape'.

         For the reasons given above, I conclude that the First-tier Tribunal decision did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.