Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06344/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester, Piccadilly
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 4th November 2016
On 9th November 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

REHAM [C]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr J Greer (Broudie Jackson & Canter)
For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS
1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal by the Appellant, with permission granted by a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, in relation to a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge S C Clark promulgated on 8 February 2016 by which he dismissed the Appellant's asylum appeal.
2. The background to this case is that the Appellant is a citizen of Sierra Leone who entered the UK illegally using false documentation and a false name on 16 October 2012
3. The Appellant's case is that he was born in Masingbe in Sierra Leone. His parents died when he was 10 or 11 years old and he was an only child. He then went to live with his mother's younger brother but he died in 2012. That uncle was a member of the Poro Society.
4. Shortly after his uncle's death the Appellant was taken to the bush to be initiated into the Poro Society. The Poro Society is one of Sierra Leone's secret societies. He had been warned by his mother not to become a member of the Poro Society.
5. In the bush a number of young men were waiting to be initiated, none of whom the appellant knew. He and four others managed to escape. One was caught but the Appellant was not and he ran to a friend of his uncle's in Masingbe, who he referred to as Uncle Nixon although he was not related.
6. Uncle Nixon offered to help the Appellant and the following day he and the Appellant travelled to Freetown where they stayed in Uncle Nixon's house for around two months. Shortly after they arrived Uncle Nixon began to sexually abuse the Appellant.
7. During this time, using papers given to him by Uncle Nixon, the Appellant obtained documents in a false name and went to the British High Commission where he was granted a multiple entry visa.
8. In October 2012 the Appellant travelled to the UK with Uncle Nixon and then lived in Uncle Nixon's house in Manchester. He was subjected to further sexual abuse by Uncle Nixon there.
9. After approximately four months the Appellant was taken by Uncle Nixon to another man's house where he was asked to perform a sex act but he refused to do so.
10. That same evening, on the way home, the Appellant and Uncle Nixon stopped outside a shop and, at Uncle Nixon's request, the Appellant went inside. When the appellant came out of the shop Uncle Nixon had gone and he has neither seen nor heard from him since.
11. The Appellant then slept on the streets for two nights until he was directed to social services in Oldham.
12. The Appellant claimed to be 16 years old and so was placed in the care of social services. However, social services were concerned that he was not in fact under 18 and he was assessed in April/May 2013 and found to be over 18. He was discharged from social services care.
13. In June 2013, as a result of the Appellant's claims about being sexually abused, the Home Office raised a potential victim of trafficking case.
14. Following an assessment he was found not to have been the victim of trafficking.
15. The Appellant has received psychological therapy, being assessed by a consultant forensic psychiatrist who opined that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
16. In the UK the Appellant says that he has established a private life. He is attending college and playing in a football team.
17. His asylum claim is based on the fact that he is a Muslim and also that he would be seriously at risk from the Poro Society in Sierra Leone.
18. Before the First-tier Tribunal the Appellant disputed both his age and the decision that he had not been the victim of trafficking.
19. The Judge noted that the Appellant had given a consistent account over a number of interviews including during his screening interview, his interview with the psychiatrist and during his age assessment as to what he had witnessed regarding the Poro Society initiation ceremony and the reasons why he ran away. He had also been consistent in his account of having no close relatives in Sierra Leone.
20. It was not in dispute that the Appellant had entered the UK using false documentation and a false identity.
21. The Judge accepted the Appellant's account of having been sexually abused by Uncle Nixon although given the lack of evidence, either medical or police evidence, he was unable to make a finding as to the extent of the abuse or the period of time over which it took place. The Judge noted however that the Appellant had not seen or heard from Uncle Nixon since April 2013.
22. The Judge did not make adverse findings in relation to inconsistencies raised by the Secretary of State in the refusal letter.
23. With regard to the appellant's age, the Judge did not accept that he was under 18 when he claimed asylum. He accepted the age assessment as it was carried out by two experienced social workers with the aid of an interpreter and accepted that the Appellant was, the date of the age assessment, 18 or 19 years of age.
24. Specifically, at paragraph 26 of the decision the Judge found that although he was satisfied the Appellant had been a victim of sexual abuse and there was a breach of trust by Uncle Nixon he was not persuaded, on the evidence, that the Appellant was a victim of trafficking. He noted that the Appellant's evidence was that he went to Uncle Nixon to ask for help because he was afraid of the Poro Society; that he had lived with him in Freetown for some two months and there was no cogent evidence to suggest that the Appellant was not free to do as he wished in Freetown.
25. The Judge noted that the Appellant had lived with Uncle Nixon in Manchester for a period of six months but gave no cogent explanation as to why he did not leave the house during that time and there was no cogent evidence that he was prevented from leaving to seek help should he wish to.
26. The Judge also did not accept that, having been supposedly unable to leave Uncle Nixon's house for those six months, he was then suddenly and without warning abandoned in the street.
27. On the basis of the consultant psychiatrist's evidence the Judge accepted that the Appellant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder but also noted that with psychological therapy there had been a significant improvement.
28. With regard to risk on return and sufficiency of protection the Judge found that there was no credible evidence that the Appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis that he was a Muslim and indeed there was no evidence adduced about that.
29. The Judge then, at paragraph 34 of his decision, considered the risk of forced initiation into the Poro Society and noted that the refusal letter set out extracts from a report by Ref World dated 9 March 2009 entitled "Fear of forced initiation into the Poro Society" to support the view that the Appellant would not be at risk on that basis and that there was a sufficiency of protection particularly as the Poro society is not a state-sponsored group nor linked to the government. That report stated that the Poro Society does not have a formal central organisation and operates throughout through independent local groups. The Poro should be considered a diversity of associations that differentially share some ritual practices... The Poro Society forms a network of connections over a wide reaching area. This network may be useful for trade, sharing information and for political support.
30. The Judge referred, at paragraph 35, to the Appellant's representative referring him to a number of reports contained in the Appellant's bundle. There was a Country of Origin Researched Information Report from the Refugee Information Centre in Ireland dated March 2009 which indicated that secret societies such as the Poro Society are an integral part of Sierra Leonean culture and that nearly everyone living in Sierra Leone's provinces, particularly the rural parts, belong to a secret society. The Judge went on to note that in the same report there was reference to the 2011 US State Department Report which stated that government sources extrapolated the decrease in male initiations from observations that fewer young men were returning to their home villages, where initiation ceremonies are held, from their jobs in the country's main cities and towns.
31. The Judge then went on to note, at paragraph 36, that he had been referred by the Appellant's representative to a report by the Poro Studies Association of October 2014 which, it was claimed, supported the Appellant's evidence as to what he says he saw during the initiation ceremony. However he also noted that the report went on to say "even today Poro membership is of great social and political importance, although instead of undergoing circumcision in the traditional sacred grove... Some very westernised parents will have their son circumcised in a medical clinic and then send them to abbreviated sessions in the bush."
32. At paragraph 37 the Judge went on to state that the Appellant had consistently stated he feared the Poro Society and that if he is returned Sierra Leone he will be killed or will suffer serious harm. However the Judge found there to be no cogent evidence before him that forced initiations were taking place, especially amongst young men working in the towns and cities or that the Appellant would suffer serious harm as a result of having escaped from a Poro Society initiation ceremony some four years earlier.
33. The Judge went on to note that the Appellant is a young adult who has successfully integrated into the community in which he now lives in the UK; that he is attending college and has obtained a number of qualifications which would be relevant to life in Sierra Leone. As a result the Judge found it would not be unduly harsh for him on his return to relocate to Freetown or one of the other towns or cities in Sierra Leone.
34. The Judge then concluded that there was no reasonable degree of likelihood that the Appellant's fear was well-founded.
35. The two grounds upon which permission to appeal was granted and which were pursued before me were as follows. Firstly, that the Judge erred in finding the Appellant was not a victim of trafficking when the findings of fact that the Judge made fell squarely within the definition of trafficking under the Palermo protocol and in finding that the Appellant had not been trafficked the Judge had erred. As a result of that error he had further erred in failing to consider whether the Appellant would be at risk of being re-trafficked. Secondly, with regard to the risk of forced initiation the Judge was wrong to say there was no cogent evidence that forced initiations were taking place when the documents referred to indicated that they were.
36. I do not find the Judge made an error in finding that the Appellant had not been a victim of trafficking. The NRM report is contained in the Appellant's bundle at page 114. At page 124 the Competent Authority officer responsible for considering his case indicated that he had carefully considered all of the information provided to him and decided that, based on information available, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant did not meet the definition of a victim of trafficking. Pertinent to that conclusion was that the Appellant had claimed to be a minor when in fact he had been assessed to be an adult over the age of 18. It was not accepted on the basis of the evidence given that the Appellant was in any way a prisoner in Uncle Nixon's house in Manchester. Although the Appellant claimed that Uncle Nixon wanted him to perform a sexual act on another man, the Appellant was able to refuse and his uncle had abandoned him without warning or explanation.
37. The officer also noted that despite having claimed to be sleeping rough for two nights, when the Appellant presented himself to social services his appearance did not suggest that that was the case.
38. The officer also noted the claim made at some point by the Appellant that he had a brother in the UK who was a British citizen contradicted his claim to be an only child orphaned at the age of 10 or 11. In conclusion the officer found that given the ease with which the Appellant claimed to have escaped from the alleged trafficker and the concerns over the veracity of his account as a whole he did not accept that the events occurred as he claimed or that he was a trafficked person.
39. The Judge was entitled to accept that while the Appellant might have been sexually abused by his Uncle Nixon the remainder of his claim did not fall squarely within the definition of trafficking. There was no evidence that the Appellant was at any time coerced by Uncle Nixon. He had sought his help to escape, he claimed, Poro Society, and had willingly travelled with him to Freetown, willingly obtained a visa and willingly travelled to the UK. Whilst Uncle Nixon's abusive behaviour towards the Appellant is inexcusable, it does not amount to trafficking. The Judge's conclusions were also in accord with the findings of the NRM and there was no evidence to support an alternate view.
40. The Judge, not having considered the Appellant to be a victim of trafficking, did not err in failing to consider whether there was a risk of his being re-trafficked.
41. Notwithstanding what I have said above, whether or not the Appellant was a victim of trafficking would only be relevant if there was a real risk that that would put him at risk on return to Sierra Leone. The evidence in the case from the Appellant and repeated several times in the NRM report is that he did not fear Uncle Nixon and did not fear being re-trafficked. He was not a random victim of trafficking; he was not trafficked at the behest of his family. He came to the UK willingly with Uncle Nixon. Uncle Nixon remains in the UK, so far as the evidence would suggest. There is no evidence or suggestion that Uncle Nixon was anything other than acting alone and therefore no possibility of any finding that the Appellant would be at risk of re-trafficking even had he been trafficked in the first place. Indeed, the Appellant did not claim to be at risk of being re-trafficked nor did he claim to fear Uncle Nixon. Accordingly I find that even if the First-tier Tribunal had erred in considering that the Appellant had not been trafficked, which I do not find, that would have made no material difference to the outcome of that aspect of the Appellant's claim. Quite simply it could not have succeeded on the evidence.
42. The second criticism of the First-tier Tribunal is in the Judge's dealing with the risk of forced initiation and criticism of the Judge saying that there was no cogent evidence that forced initiations were taking place when there were documents to that effect in the bundle. The Judge did not say there was no evidence. The judge referred to the evidence that he had been referred to by the Appellant's representative and also to the evidence contained in the Secretary of State's refusal letter. What the Judge said was that there was no "cogent" evidence. The Judge's finding that there would be no risk to the Appellant living in a city such as Freetown or another large city or town in Sierra Leone is entirely in accordance with the evidence.

Notice of Decision

For the above reasons I find that the Decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not contain an error of law material to the outcome and I uphold it. I therefore dismiss the Appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 8th November 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin