Tribunal decisions

The decision

The Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal number: AA/00827/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Stoke
Determination Promulgated
On September 8, 2016
On September 13, 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

MR LIBAN ALI MUMIN
(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Greer (Legal Representative)
For the Respondent: Mr Bates (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Somalia. On October 4, 2013 he entered the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. The respondent refused his asylum claim on December 31, 2014 under paragraph 336 HC 395 and took a decision to refuse him leave to enter.

2. The appellant appealed those decisions under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on January 19, 2015.

3. His appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Chambers (hereinafter referred to as the Judge) on November 3, 2015 and in a decision promulgated on November 6, 2015 he dismissed his appeal on all grounds.

4. The appellant lodged grounds of appeal on November 19, 2015 submitting the Judge had erred in the way he dealt with evidence and article 15(c).

5. Permission to appeal was refused by Designated Judge of the First-tier Tribunal McCarthy on December 7, 2015. Permission to appeal was renewed to the Upper Tribunal on December 21, 2015 and Upper Tribunal Judge Warr granted permission finding it arguable that as the appellant came from a minority clan the Judge should have considered his case against the country guidance decision of MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) and in particular headnote (xii) of that decision.

6. The matter came before me on the above date and I heard submissions from both representatives.

7. No anonymity direction has been made.

SUBMISSIONS

8. Mr Greer submitted that whilst the ground identified by Upper Tribunal Warr was the strongest nevertheless he would argue that other grounds identified errors in law. He submitted there were errors as follows:

a. As regards the first ground Mr Greer submitted that the Judge gave inadequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's claim that he was a journalist. He failed to have regard to the documents contained in the appellant's bundle or place the appropriate weight on Mr Abdi's evidence.

b. As regards the second ground of appeal Mr Greer submitted that as the Judge accepted the appellant came from a minority clan and from Kismayo he was obliged to consider the appellant's ability to live in Mogadishu in light of MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC).

c. The third ground of appeal related to how the Judge treated the appellant's ability to travel out of Mogadishu.

9. Mr Bates adopted the Rule 24 statement dated January 26, 2016 and he rejected all of the grounds of appeal. As regards the first ground of appeal he submitted the Judge considered the evidence and rejected the appellant's account and gave adequate reasons for his decision. The documents produced were not corroborative documents as they merely repeated information in the public domain. With regard to the second ground of appeal he submitted that the appellant failed to give reasons why he could not support himself in Mogadishu and there was no error in approach to MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC). If he could live in Mogadishu then there would be no reason to consider travel back to Kismayo.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

10. At paragraph [29] of his decision the Judge concluded the appellant was a member of the Ashraf minority clan and that he lived in Kismayo.

11. In assessing the risk to the appellant the Judge had to consider the appellant's claim to be a journalist because the respondent disputed his claim. Mr Greer argued that he did not give consideration to all the evidence but I am satisfied this ground of appeal has no merit. In a detailed examination the Judge considered the appellant's account and gave reasons for rejecting the claim. These reasons were open to him on the evidence especially as he clearly considered witness evidence advanced on his behalf. He referred to the objective evidence generally in paragraph [39] but for the reasons contained therein he rejected it. The grounds advanced by Mr Greer are a disagreement with his conclusions. There is no merit to the first ground of appeal.

12. The second ground of appeal relates to his treatment of the appellant's humanitarian protection claim.

13. Mr Greer's submission is that the Judge failed to engage with MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC) bearing in mind he was not from Mogadishu. His argument was that the Judge did not engage with what the Tribunal said about people, not from Mogadishu, being returned to Mogadishu.

14. The Tribunal considered the issue of return to Mogadishu in MOJ. The Tribunal stated:

"424. The evidence indicates clearly that it is not simply those who originate from Mogadishu that may now generally return to live in the city without being subjected to an Article 15(c) risk or facing a real risk of destitution. Large numbers of Somali citizens have moved to Mogadishu where, as we have seen there is now freedom of movement and no clan based discrimination. Such a person seeking to settle in Mogadishu but who has not previously lived there would be able to do so provided he had either some form of social support network, which might be in the form of membership of a majority clan or having relatives living in the city, or having access to funds such as would be required to establish accommodation and a means of on-going support. That might be in terms of continuing remittances or securing a livelihood, based on employment or self employment.

425. On the other hand, relocation in Mogadishu for a person of a minority clan with no former links to the city, no access to funds and no other form of clan, family or social support is unlikely to be realistic as, in the absence of means to establish a home and some form of ongoing financial support there will be a real risk of having no alternative but to live in makeshift accommodation within an IDP camp where there is a real possibility of having to live in conditions that will fall below acceptable humanitarian standards."

15. The Judge was therefore required to consider the appellant's situation with paragraph [425] of MOJ in mind and if he did not then there would be an error in law.

16. At paragraph [41] of his decision the Judge referred to the country guidance decision of MOJ & Ors (Return to Mogadishu) Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC). He noted the following:

a. The appellant would return to Mogadishu as an ordinary citizen.
b. He did not have profile that would place him at risk.
c. The appellant was fit and well.
d. It was not clear whether he had family in Somalia.
e. He rejected his claim that he had been gratuitously provided with a passport and flight to leave the country.

17. Paragraph [41] of the Judge's decision demonstrates that the Judge did have in mind what the Tribunal stated in MOJ.

18. The Judge in examining his claim whilst accepting he came from the Ashraf tribe nevertheless made a number of adverse findings about his claim and in paragraph [41] he brought the material findings together.

19. In effect, he found the appellant was fit and well and due to the inconsistencies in the evidence he did not rule out the appellant having family to whom he could turn to in Somalia. He also rejected his account of he was able to leave the country and in particular he rejected his claim that an agent "gratuitously" assisted him to leave.

20. The Tribunal in MOJ did not say minority clan members returning to Mogadishu would be at risk. The Tribunal made it clear that if they were from a minority clan and it was shown he had no ties to the city or clan/family support or access to funds then that person was likely to be at risk.

21. I therefore find that the Judge did properly consider risk on return to Mogadishu and having done so he then found that as he could return there he was not required to consider the issue of safe onward travel (Ground Three).

22. I therefore uphold the Judge's decision and dismiss this appeal.

DECISION

23. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law. I uphold the Judge's decision on all grounds.

Signed: Dated: September 13, 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

TO THE RESPONDENT

FEE AWARD

I uphold the original fee decision.

Signed Dated: September 13, 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis