Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: AA/05014/2015
AA/05015/2015
AA/05016/2015
AA/05017/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at City Centre Tower Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 5th August 2016
On 31st August 2016

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

te (first Appellant)
se (second Appellant)
ae (third Appellant)
ae (fourth Appellant)
(ANONYMITY order made)
Appellants
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellants: Mr S Knight, Counsel instructed by Jacobs & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mrs H Aboni, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellants are a family of Sri Lankan citizens comprising the first Appellant, TE born on [ ] 1976, her husband SE born on [ ] 1976, and their two children born respectively on [ ] 2007 and [ ] 2014. The first Appellant, TE, visited the United Kingdom between September 2006 and October 2010, and again in 2011, returning to Sri Lanka in December 2011. She last came to the United Kingdom in 2012 when she was given leave to enter as a student until 26th January 2013. She applied for asylum on 23rd January 2013, and her husband joined her in the United Kingdom on 17th June 2013. Her application for asylum was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent's letter of 5th March 2015. The other Appellants who had applied as her dependants were likewise refused. All the Appellants appealed those decisions, and their appeals were heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Graham (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 19th June 2015. She decided to dismiss the appeals on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds for the reasons given in her Decision of 16th July 2015. The Appellants sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 5th October 2015 such permission was granted.
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 Appellants case was that the first Appellant and her husband operated two companies in Sri Lanka facilitating arrangements for Sri Lankan students to study abroad including the United Kingdom. Starting in November 2009, SE was forced by the LTTE to assist LTTE students to study abroad. As a consequence in January 2011 SE was detained by the Sri Lankan authorities for one day and questioned. Following his release, those authorities demanded money from him threatening to kidnap his son. On 29th February 2012 SE was abducted by the authorities and questioned about the LTTE. Thereafter he was detained for a year during which time he was tortured. On 18th May 2013 he escaped and eventually travelled to the United Kingdom.
4. The Judge dismissed the appeals because she found the evidence of TE and SE lacking in credibility. She found the credibility of TE damaged by operation of Section 8 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, and the evidence of SE to be highly implausible and inconsistent. The Judge gave a number of examples of the implausibilities and inconsistencies. The Judge also found the documentary evidence submitted on behalf of the Appellants to be unreliable.
5. At the hearing before me, Mr Knight argued that the Judge had erred in law in coming to this conclusion. He submitted that she had failed to engage with the core of the case, and had given insufficient reasons for her credibility finding. The Judge had failed to make a specific finding as to the credibility of TE. TE had been treated as a peripheral witness whereas she was an Appellant in her own right.
6. In response, Mrs Aboni referred to the Rule 24 response and submitted that there were no errors of law in the decision of the Judge. The appeal of TE was entirely dependent upon her husband's claim, and if the Judge found this not to be credible, then TE's appeal must fail. The Judge fully considered the case of SE and gave full reasons for her finding that it was not credible. In any event the Judge had made a specific finding concerning the credibility of TE at paragraph 40 of the Decision.
7. I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which therefore I do not set aside. As Mrs Aboni said, TE's claim to be at risk on return to Sri Lanka depended entirely upon what had happened to her husband in Sri Lanka, and relied upon the evidence of her husband as regards those events. The Judge found the evidence of SE in respect of those events to be lacking in credibility. She carefully analysed his evidence in paragraphs 41 to 48 inclusive of the Decision and gave more than adequate reasons for her finding. She found SE's evidence to be inconsistent and implausible and gave a number of examples of each. In my view the Judge came to a conclusion about the evidence of SE which was open to her on the evidence before her and which she fully explained. In addition, the Judge dealt with the documentary evidence, and found the credibility of TE to be damaged by operation of Section 8 of the 2004 Act.
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 made an order for anonymity which I continue for the reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal.

Signed Date 31st August 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton