Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-SAR-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/04107/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at City Centre Tower, Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 31st October 2016
On 17th November 2016

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

SHAHIN [N]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr R Martin, Counsel instructed by Morden Solicitors LLP
For the Respondent: Mrs H Abone, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a female citizen of Afghanistan born on 1st January 1974. She arrived in the UK on 19th November 2013 when she applied for asylum. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent's letter of 13th February 2015. The Appellant appealed, and her appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Robertson (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 28th October 2015. She decided to dismiss the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds for the reasons given in her Decision dated 3rd November 2015. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and eventually such permission was granted on 5th January 2016.
Error of Law
2. I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside.
3. The Judge found that it was likely that the Appellant had worked in Kunduz for an NGO called the Peace Window for Women's Rehabilitation Organisation of Afghanistan (PWWROA). The Judge dismissed the appeal because otherwise she did not find the Appellant's evidence credible and therefore was not satisfied that the Appellant had a profile sufficient to be targeted and that her son and husband had been kidnapped. The Judge identified inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence which she also described as vague, and believed that the Appellant had embellished her account. In the alternative, the Judge found that even if the Appellant was at risk in Kunduz, she could safely relocate to Kabul where she would have a support network consisting of her brother and mother.
4. At the hearing, Mr Martin argued that the Judge had erred in law in coming to this conclusion. The Judge had made a factual error as to how long the Appellant had remained in Kunduz after she had been threatened and her husband had been kidnapped. Further, the Judge had not given the proper weight to the objective evidence that the Appellant would also be at risk in Kabul. This objective evidence had been referred to in the Appellant's Skeleton Argument.
5. In response, Mrs Abone referred to the Rule 24 response and argued that there was no such error of law. The Judge had come to findings of fact which were open to her on the evidence and which she fully explained. The Judge accepted that the Appellant may have worked for an NGO, but gave reasons for her decision that that did not give her a risk profile. In any event, the Judge considered the position of the Appellant taking her evidence at its highest and found that she had a viable internal relocation option. As the Appellant would be returning to family in Kabul, the Judge found that the Appellant was not at risk there in accordance with the decision in AK (Article 15(c)) Afghanistan CG [2012] UKUT 00163 (IAC). The Appellant's grounds amounted to no more than a disagreement with the decision of the Judge.
6. I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which I therefore do not set aside. I agree with the submission of Mrs Abone that the Judge came to a finding of fact that the Appellant was not at risk on return to Kunduz because her evidence of threats and kidnaps there was not credible which was open to her on the evidence and which she fully explained. In any event, any error of law in this respect, such as the error of fact as to how long the Appellant had remained in Kunduz, is not material because the Judge went on to find that it was both safe and not unreasonable for the Appellant to relocate to Kabul. This was in accordance with a current Country Guidance case regardless of the expert evidence of Dr Giustozzi which in any event the Judge dealt with at paragraph 29V of the Decision. For these reasons I find no material error of law in the decision of the Judge.

Notice of Decision

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I do not set aside that decision.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order for anonymity. I was not asked to do so, and indeed find no reason to do so. I make no order for anonymity.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton