Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/07652/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

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

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MARTIN

Between

Almas [B]
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Sean F Ell (instructed by Carter Law Solicitors Ltd)
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, by the Appellant in relation to a Decision and Reasons of the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Davies) promulgated on 21st August 2015.

2. The Appellant is a citizen of Pakistan born on [ ] 1987. She came to the United Kingdom as a student in 2011. Her leave was curtailed in 2013 and when encountered 12 months later in October 2014 she claimed asylum. She claimed that she had been ill treated by her husband who she had been forced to marry in Pakistan and that if returned he will kill her.

3. The Judge did not find the Appellant's claims to be credible and dismissed the appeal.

4. The grant of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was made on a single issue, namely that it was an arguable error of law to fail to take into account the Country Guidance cases. The relevant cases are SN & HM (divorced woman - risk on return) Pakistan CG [2004] UKIAT 00283 and SM (lone women - ostracism) Pakistan [2016] UKUT 00067 (IAC). The remainder of the grounds, the Judge granting permission found to be no more than a disagreement with the findings of the Judge which were made with sustainable reasons and based on the evidence.

5. The Appellant had complained that her husband and his family were members of SSP (Sipah-e-Sahaba). The Judge found this claim to be without credibility as the Appellant's family and her husband's family were both related and from the same village and it was therefore not credible that she and her family would not know of her husband and his family's involvement with the SSP as she claimed.

6. The Judge found her claim not credible because her description of her husband and his behaviour towards her wholly contradicted by the fact that he allowed her to live separately from him and work as a nurse in Rawalpindi until 2011. The Judge also found it not credible that if her husband were as she claimed, he would have allowed her to come on her own to the United Kingdom to work.

7. The Judge found that had her claims been credible she would have claimed asylum when she arrived in the United Kingdom and not waited several years and in particular only claim when she came to the attention of the Secretary of State.

8. The Judge noted that the Appellant is an educated woman and he found the reason given for her late claim without credibility.

9. The Judge also found her claim without credibility on the basis that her husband had divorced her and that being the case would have no reason to wish to harm her.

10. The Appellant's uncle gave evidence and the Judge dismissed his evidence on the basis that he and the Appellant gave discrepant evidence.

11. The Judge at paragraphs 94 & 95 set out why this Appellant could live alone in one of the major cities and work as a nurse without risk.

12. It is true that nowhere in the Decision and Reasons does the Judge specifically refer to the Country Guidance cases by name. The relevant part of the Country Guidance is found in SN & HM where it is stated that "it will not normally be unduly harsh for educated, better off, or older women to seek internal relocation to a city. It helps if a woman has qualifications enabling her to get well-paid employment and pay for accommodation and childcare if required. "It is quite clear that the Judge had the case law in mind and followed the guidance contained therein because the basis upon which he found that the Appellant would not be at risk was that she is a highly educated woman who could live alone and work to support herself. She is one of the categories of person who would not be at risk returning as a divorced woman in accordance with case law.

13. The First-tier Tribunal did not make any material errors of law in its Decision and Reasons and the Decision and Reasons is upheld.

14. The Appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

15. There was no application for an anonymity direction and I see no justification for making one.

Signed Date 10th August 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Martin