Tribunal decisions

The decision

The Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal number: AA069142015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On June 13, 2016
On June 14, 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

Between

MRS AVIN SADIQY
(NO ANONYMITY DIRECTION)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Hussain (Legal representative)
For the Respondent: Mr McVeety (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DECISION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Iran. She claimed to have arrived in the United Kingdom on October 6, 2014 and having been detained by the police the following day she claimed asylum. The respondent refused her asylum claim on March 31, 2015 under paragraph 336 and issued directions for her removal as an illegal entrant by way of directions under paragraphs 8-10 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.

2. The appellant appealed that decision under section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on April 17, 2015.

3. The appeal came before Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Dickson (hereinafter referred to as the Judge) on June 23, 2015 and in a decision promulgated on July 15, 2016 he refused the appellant's appeal.

4. The appellant lodged grounds of appeal on July 27, 2015 submitting the Judge had erred.

5. Permission to appeal was initially refused by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Page on September 29, 2015 who found the appeal was out of time and there were no reasons given to extend it and secondly he found there was no material error. Permission to appeal was renewed and it came before Upper Tribunal Lindsey on November 2, 2015. She found an arguable error in law for the reasons put forward in the original grounds.

6. In a Rule 24 response dated December 18, 2015 the respondent opposed the appeal.

7. The matter came before me on the above date and I heard submissions from both representatives.

8. No anonymity direction has been made.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

9. The original grounds of appeal were out of time and neither Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Page nor Upper Tribunal Lindsey had extended time.

10. The explanation provided was that the appeal had been faxed in time but an error report had not been seen until after the time for appealing had elapsed. Mr Hussain invited me to extend time under Rule 21(7) of the The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

11. Mr McVeety did not object and accordingly I extend time.

SUBMISSIONS

12. Mr Hussain relied on the grounds and submitted the Judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence by failing to have regard to the appellant's own circumstances and the fact she was un-educated and vulnerable. He had found her to have given inconsistent evidence but in doing so he misunderstood the evidence. Whilst she was able to remember specific dates she had been unable to recall how old when she met Amir but this should not be held against her.

13. Mr McVeety relied on the Rule 24 letter and argued that it had been open to the Judge to make findings in her and the evidence. Having considered her version of events the judge found against her and these grounds of appeal amounted to nothing more than a mere disagreement.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

14. The appellant's asylum claim was based on her alleged adultery. It was acknowledged both before the Judge and myself today that the Judge was concerned with credibility.

15. The grounds of appeal allege the Judge failed to carry out that assessment fairly.

16. The Judge made findings on inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence. These are highlighted in his decision at paragraphs [23] to [28]. The Judge placed great weight on the answer she gave during cross-examination when she was asked how old she was when she began her relationship with Amir. He recorded and it is not challenged that she stated it was in the month of Aban in 1392 which put the date between October 23, 2013 and November 21, 2013. Based on her year of birth being 1989 this would have made her twenty-four years of age. However, she had previously claimed to have been in a relationship with Amir since she was seventeen or eighteen years of age. The Judge was aware of her vulnerability because he recorded this in in paragraph [22] of his decision but he nevertheless concluded she lacked credibility on that inconsistency when she later claimed she did not know how old she was.

17. Mr Hussain submitted more weight should have been given to her personal circumstances but the assessment of her credibility was a matter for the Judge who heard her give evidence. He would have noted she displayed an ability to accurately record dates and events in her interview and this discrepancy in a core issue of her claim was so significant that he made an adverse credibility finding. I find nothing wrong with that approach and the Judge was entitled t make the finding he did.

18. The other issue raised was whether the Judge erred in the timeline of the appellant's relationship with Amir generally. The appellant gave answers about how long she had known Amir for in her interview and when inconsistencies were highlighted she provided a statement that sought to explain the inconsistencies. The Judge considered that and at paragraph [26] gave his reasons for rejecting her explanation and preferring the respondent's arguments. Again, that approach was open to the Judge.

19. This was a credibility issue and the Judge found she was not a a credible witness.

20. Nothing I have heard to day persuades me that there is an error in law and I uphold the original decision.

DECISION

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

Signed: Dated:

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Alis

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

No order is made because no fee was paid.

Signed Dated

Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Alis