Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06891/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 10th August 2016
On 12 August 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

Mr Zhen Quen Huang
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Appellant not present or represented
For the Respondent: Mr G Harrison (Senior Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal to the Upper Tribunal, with permission, in relation to a Decision and Reasons of Judge Herwald promulgated on the 11th February 2015 by which he dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal having been granted my first task is to decide whether the First - tier Tribunal made an error of law and if so whether and to what extent the Decision should be set aside.

2. There was no attendance by the Appellant or by his Representatives. Having checked the file I was satisfied that notices of hearing had been sent to both the Appellant and his Representatives. The Tribunal clerk attempted on several occasions to telephone the Representatives but the telephone was unanswered.

3. There had been no application to adjourn.

4. I was given no explanation or reason not to proceed and so I decided to proceed.

5. Although this was an appeal against the refusal of an asylum claim, Counsel who represented the Appellant before the First - tier Tribunal made clear that the Appellant did not wish to pursue any asylum aspects of his claim. He was no longer asserting that he needed protection for any refugee reason and his Counsel made clear that the case would proceed only on the grounds of the Human Rights claim. So much is made clear in paragraph 5 of Judge Herwald's decision.

6. The Appellant was thus relying upon Article 8 and in particular his relationship with his British Citizen spouse and her two children, the youngest of whom was under 18.

7. The Judge found that the Appellant was not a credible witness and he found that the relationship with hi spouse was not genuine and subsisting and dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the Judge, while recording the number of witness statements he had before him, did not appear to engage with the evidence in those witness statements and furthermore the treatment of the Appellant's relationship with the child under family life did not properly address the best interests of the child or whether there was any dependency in the relationship.

8. It is quite clear from the Decision that the Judge was singularly unimpressed by the Appellant. He noted in paragraph 20 that China is the country of the Appellant's birth and the country of he speaks the language and where he spent the majority of his life. He also had a wife and two children there.

9. The Judge heard from only two witnesses, the Appellant and his wife, and the Judge did not accept that the Appellant had broken all ties with China.

10. The Judge found at paragraph 20 (b) that the Appellant was being untruthful when he said that he did not realise he was supposed to keep in touch with the Home Office. The Judge found that he knew perfectly well he was supposed to report, but instead, absconded.

11. The Judge found at paragraph 20 (c) that absconding was a deliberate attempt to delay or frustrate the decision making process and frustrate removal.

12. At paragraph 20 (d) the judge found his answers, when asked how he had supported himself in the UK for so many years, evasive and dishonest constantly refusing to answer questions put to him.

13. At paragraph 20 (e) the Judge found that throughout his cross examination, the Appellant had to be reminded that he was not answering the question and questions were constantly repeated, to no avail. In that paragraph the Judge accepted the assertion by the Secretary of State that it is more likely than not that the Appellant had been working illegally to support himself in the UK.

14. At paragraph 20 (f) the Judge noted that the Appellant had indicated that when he left China he had a wife and two children there but throughout the asylum and appeal process in the UK he made no mention of them whatsoever. The Judge found at paragraph 20 (g) that it was impossible to avoid the impression that this man's evidence changed with the wind and that he was attempting to tailor his evidence to the questions put. Later, the Judge found that the evidence as to the contact he had with people in China was also inconsistent and the Judge was particularly unimpressed by the suggestion that he could not remember whether his mother was alive or dead and he found at paragraph 20 (p) that clearly this is not a man to be trusted or, sadly, believed. He was telling a pack of lies about his history of lack of contact or otherwise.

15. The Judge went on to consider the nature of the relationship and found on the evidence of Council Tax bills, all of which contained the single person discount, that that was an indication that the "wife" was living on her own and evidence of cohabitation was scant. Whilst witnesses had indicated in statements that they were living together, the parties own evidence, the Judge found, gave a lie to that.

16. The "marriage" relied upon by the Appellant was a Chinese form of traditional marriage. The Judge, correctly, found that this was not a genuine marriage. He was not persuaded that they had lived together for the time they claimed or at all given the inconsistencies in their evidence.

17. On the basis that the Judge found that the marriage was neither genuine nor subsisting it can be no error not to have considered the situation of the "wife's" children. If his relationship with their mother was not genuine or subsisting then clearly his relationship with them must not have been either.

18. For all of the above reasons I find that the Decision of the First - tier Tribunal did not contain any material error of law and it stands.

19. The First-tier Tribunal did not make an anonymity direction and I see no reason to make one.

Decision

The Appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed

Signed Date 11th August 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin