Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-FH-LW-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00597/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 23rd February 2017
On 1st March 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

Between

M Y
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr R Bartram of Migrant Law Partnership
For the Respondent: Mr S Kotas, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is the appellant’s appeal against the decision of Judge Nixon made following a hearing at Birmingham on 27th October 2016.
Background
2. The appellant is a citizen of Ethiopia born on 12th April 1988. He arrived in the UK on 7th March 2015 on a business visit visa and claimed asylum a week later. He claimed to be at risk on return to Ethiopia on the grounds that he was an OLF supporter who had been arrested and detained on 5th September 2011.
3. As at the date of the refusal of the claim he had not joined any OLF group in the UK, but had attended two protests and one meeting.
4. The judge, like the respondent, reached adverse credibility findings in relation to the appellant’s account of having been arrested in Ethiopia. He did not find it credible that he would have subsequently been employed by the Government within a security agency if he was a suspected OLF activist. The judge recorded that the appellant relied on the evidence of a Mr I H who had been granted asylum as an OLF sympathiser and recorded that there were significant inconsistencies between their evidence.
5. The judge considered a letter from a Dr Berri, Chairman of the OLF Committee in the UK in support of the appellant’s case but placed little weight upon it because the letter was based upon details given to him by the appellant and made no mention of any independent investigation being undertaken by him.
6. The judge observed that the Oromos were not persecuted unless seen by the authorities to be politically active and there would be no real risk on account of his ethnicity as such.
7. The judge then considered the appellant’s activities whilst in the UK and concluded that there was no evidence that the Ethiopian authorities had any knowledge of the photographs taken to confirm the appellant’s attendance at meetings and no evidence that they could have any ability to identify him. The photographs had not been published either on the internet or on an OLF sympathetic site or otherwise or published in any other document. Since there was no evidence that the authorities had taken an adverse interest in him – he left Ethiopia using his own passport with no problems – even if the images had been published there would be no reason for the authorities to be able to recognise him.
8. On that basis he dismissed the appeal.
The Grounds of Application
9. The appellant sought permission to appeal on the grounds that the judge had failed to give anxious scrutiny to the background evidence and to the evidence from Mr Berri and had been wrong to conclude that the appellant’s account was of having been arrested and detained on suspicion of distributing OLF leaflets was not credible. He ought to have given due weight to the letter from Dr Berri who had personally met the appellant at OLF demonstrations and checked his participation in the UK with community and youth association leaders.
10. Next, the judge had erred in his consideration of the question of whether the appellant would be at risk on account of his activities in the UK. In particular he had failed to properly take into account the evidence from Dr Trueman in his report entitled “Abuse in Ethiopia and asylum in the UK: Oromo experience” dated September 2011 which reported that the Ethiopian Government monitored the activities of diaspora members using local contacts as spies. The Tribunal in MB (OLF and MTA – risk) Ethiopia CG [2007] UKAIT 00030 had concluded that OLF members and sympathisers in general would be at real risk on return if they have previously been arrested or detained on suspicion of OLF involvement, as will those who have a significant history known to the authorities of OLF membership or sympathy.
11. Permission to appeal was granted by Judge Zucker for the reasons stated in the grounds on 5th January 2017.
12. On 17th January 2017 the respondent served a reply defending the determination.
The Hearing
13. At the hearing both Mr Bartram and Mr Kotas relied upon the points made in the grounds and the reply.
14. I conclude that there is no error of law in this decision.
15. The first two grounds are essentially a complaint about weight, but it was a matter for the judge to assess the evidence as it was presented to him and for him to assess the weight to be attributed to it. Such an assessment will not generally be interfered with by an Appellate Tribunal. Moreover, the judge’s conclusions were plainly open to him. There is a real difficulty in the appellant’s evidence in relation to the claimed arrest and detention in 2011 - he was subsequently employed by the Government within a security agency. The Immigration Judge was entitled to conclude that the authorities would likely carry out background checks on potential employees and any previous arrests would be identified, and open to him to state that it was not credible that the Government would employ a suspected OLF activist.
16. So far as the letter from Dr Berri is concerned, it was considered by the judge at paragraph 24. The judge gave sustainable reasons for placing little weight upon it.
17. Finally, in relation to the sur place activities, the only evidence which the appellant was able to point to that the Ethiopian authorities would be aware of his presence at the demonstrations and might draw negative conclusions from it, is in a six year old report from Dr Trueman which states that the Ethiopian Government monitor the activities of diaspora members. That is some way from establishing that the judge could not have reasonably concluded that the authorities would not have known of his attendance at those demonstrations.
18. If the appellant is hoping to establish that his attendance at a few meetings would put him at risk it is incumbent upon him to provide that evidence. A six year old generic report which describes monitoring of the diaspora is simply not an adequate basis upon which to conclude that the judge erred in finding that the authorities would have no knowledge of the appellant’s activities and no ability to identify him.
19. Having concluded that the appellant’s account of the events which led to his claim for asylum was untrue, there is no error in the judge deciding that his limited activities in the UK would not put him at risk on return.
Notice of Decision
20. The original judge did not err in law. The decision stands. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

Direction Regarding Anonymity – Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Signed Date 28 February 2017

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Taylor