Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA013452015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 2 February 2016
On 17 June 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

P S
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Ms Patel, instructed by Parker Rhodes Hickmotts
For the Respondent: Mr Diwnycz, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The appellant, P S, was born in 1994 and is a male citizen of Angola. He appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Ince) against the decision of the respondent to refuse him asylum and to make directions for his removal from the United Kingdom. That decision was made on 8 January 2015. The First-tier Tribunal, in a decision promulgated on 1 June 2015, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. The appellant claimed that he faced the real risk of ill-treatment in Angola at the hands of his father who he claimed was an officer in the army. The appellant's account described previous violence to which he had been subjected by his father who had wished the appellant to join the army whereas the appellant did not wish to do so. Judge Ince found that the appellant had "told the truth about what happened to him in his home country." [61]. Where Judge Ince had "great difficulty" was in relation to "communications with the [appellant's] mother and the lack of involvement of his mother's friend in contacting her once her telephone number had been lost." Given that the appellant claimed that his mother had been worried about the appellant, it was not plausible (in the opinion of Judge Ince) that contact had been so minimal. The judge went on to find [63] that it was not likely that no mention had been made in conversations between the appellant and his mother of the possible reaction of the appellant's father to the appellant leaving home. The appellant claimed that he had been in "a safe country thousands of miles from home" having travelled to the United Kingdom precisely because of the treatment he had received at the hands of his father. However, Judge Ince found it likely that the appellant would want her to have known whether her mother had suffered any "reprisal" for assisting the appellant to leave Angola. He made a specific finding that the appellant and his mother had discussed the appellant's father and his reaction [63]. The judge found that the appellant had denied that such conversation had taken place because the appellant had been "told there had been a change in his father's attitude" [64]. This led the judge to conclude that the appellant had decided to remain in the United Kingdom for reasons other than a fear of ill-treatment at the hands of his father in Angola.
3. The grounds of appeal are little more than a disagreement with those findings. The judge had accepted the appellant had in the past been effectively "kidnapped and assaulted by a man on the request of his father." The grounds go on to submit that it was "not reasonably likely the appellant's father would have had a change of heart." That certainly is one interpretation of the facts but it does not displace that reached by the judge who has carried out a proper and thorough examination of the evidence and has supported his findings with clear and cogent reasons. The judge's findings are not perverse on the face of the evidence nor is his reasoning anything other than entirely cogent and well-expressed.
4. Judge Ince went on to make a finding in the alternative in [69]. In this paragraph, the judge discusses the likely rank in the army of the appellant's father. The appellant had initially described his father as a sergeant but later said he did not know what his rank was. When the appellant had applied for a visa to come to the United Kingdom, the Entry Clearance Officer had recorded that the father was "a senior military officer". However, "due to this lack of specific evidence, it cannot be said that it would be reasonably likely the father would be able to [arrange for the appellant to be conscripted to the Angolan Army]." I find that there is no error in the judge's conclusion that there is no longer a risk to the appellant from his father but, even if there is (as Judge Ince described it) "a remaining risk from the father", the judge's finding at [69] as regards the inability of the father to compel the inscription of the appellant effectively dispels any remaining doubts as to possible risk.
5. I find, therefore, that Judge Ince has not erred in law either as asserted in the grounds of appeal or at all. The appeal is dismissed.
Notice of Decision

This 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 their 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 20 May 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award.

Signed Date 20 May 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane