Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00188/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On April 11, 2017
On April 24, 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

MR MUBARAK ASHWI FALAH GAZEH AL-KHALDI
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mrs Johnrose (Lega Representative)
For the Respondent: Mr Harrison, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant claimed to be an undocumented Kuwaiti Bidoon. On January 22, 2015 he claimed asylum. The respondent refused his application on January 21, 2016.
2. The appellant appealed that decision on February 3, 2016 Section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
3. His appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Birrell (hereinafter called the Judge) on October 20, 2016 and in a decision promulgated on October 28, 2016 she dismissed his appeal. That decision was appealed on November 10, 2016 and Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Nightingdale granted permission to appeal on November 22, 2016 on a limited basis.
4. The matter came before me on the above date for an error of law hearing.
5. I do not make an anonymity order in this case.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mrs Johnrose submitted the Judge had placed too much reliance on the document at page C3 of the respondent’s bundle because the document did not say the passport at pages C1 and C2 was genuine. The Judge had speculated about the numbers on the passport matching the numbers in the letter on page C3. Whilst they were similar the Judge’s finding at paragraph [24] was too speculative. The Judge further erred in paragraph [25] of her decision because his case had always been that the document was forged and his response at Q57 was not what he had said at Q26, 29 and 30 in his first interview and Q9, 10, 48-50 of his second interview. The Judge erred by finding he was not an undocumented Bidoon especially as the respondent had accepted there was some confusion over the passport number especially as the passport did not have his correct name.
7. Mr Harrison adopted the Rule 24 letter dated January 5, 2017. The Judge examined all of the documents. The letter from the Kuwaiti Embassy confirmed the passport at pages C1 and C2 was genuine. That document had the appellant’s photograph and correct date of birth and part of the name he gave to this Tribunal. The fact the name did not match totally meant little because that may well have been the name he gave the authorities when applying or the passport. The numbers on the passport appeared in the letter and whilst the number may have been slightly incorrect in the request letter this did not undermine the fact the Kuwaiti authorities stated the passport was genuine. He invited me to uphold the decision.
FINDINGS
8. The issue for the Judge in the FTT was a narrow issue. The appellant was either an undocumented Biddoon as he claimed or alternatively the passport was genuine. The Judge found the latter and it is her approach to two pieces of evidence (C1/C2 and C3) and his answers in interview about how he received the document that were challenged.
9. The appellant accepted he was in possession of an article 17 passport but he maintained that it was not genuine and should have been discounted by the authorities. The respondent argued before the Judge that if the passport was genuinely issued then this fatally undermined his claim to be an undocumented Bidoon.
10. At paragraph [24] the Judge considered the document at pages C1 and C2. This document was a copy of a passport in the name of Mr Mubarak AF Jazea. It contained his correct date of birth and a passport number of *******97. At the bottom of the document on page C1 there is a long number commencing with *******205K. Ms Johnrose submits that this number is not the same as the number in the letter at pages C3/C4 but looking at the document on page C2 the number is ******20. This number matches the number on page C3. That letter was a response to a letter sent to them (which was never adduced in evidence) about Mr Mubarak AF Jazea. The Embassy verified the details in that letter and this is what the Judge accepted in her decision.
11. The argument put forward by Mrs Johnrose is an alternative conclusion to that reached by the Judge. The letter made it clear that the number ******20 was not a valid passport number and looking at the document it can be seen why that number is not a passport number but merely part of a serial number.
12. The Kuwaiti authorities examined the document sent to them and concluded it was genuine. Their letter could have been clearer but Mrs Johnrose’s submission that the document could not be relied on fails to address why the authority verified the document.
13. The slight difference in the name takes the matter no further as this would have been the name the passport was applied in.
14. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Judge’s decision was open to her and there is no error in law.

Notice of Decision
15. I find no error in law and uphold the original decision.

Signed Date April 12, 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I make no fee award as I have dismissed the appeal.

Signed Date April 12, 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis