UI2024002228

       The appellant, a citizen of Guinea, appeals against the decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Forster promulgated on 20 February 2024 ("the decision").

       The hearing was conducted with myself sitting at Field House, whilst the representatives attended via Cloud Video Platform.

       The first of the three grounds raised challenging the decision are that the Judge had erred in his assessment of the risk faced by the appellant. This included his failure to consider a medical report and by setting a test of 'significant political profile' that was unsupported by the evidence, and his failure to consider whether the Guinean authorities would impute political opinion.

       The second ground averred that the Judge erred by failing to consider or address the question of HJ (Iran) [2010] UKSC 31 , given that the appellant was/is politically opposed to the regime and comes from a family with a history of political activism, alongside the fact that he has demonstrated in the UK and in Guinea where demonstrations are banned. It was therefore necessary for the Judge to consider what the appellant would do if returned and if he refrained from any political activity, why this was so.

       The third ground was that the Judge erred in his consideration of (the now defunct) Immigration Rule 276ADE(1)(vi) and Article 8 ECHR. This included noting the appellant as a person who was fifty years of age when he is fact aged thirty four years. There was also a failure to consider under this heading that the appellant had been detained and tortured in Guinea before he escaped, and this was all material to the question as to whether there would be very significant obstacles to reintegration if he went back there now.