Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number AA/08092/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Centre City Tower, Birmingham
Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 20th July 2016
On 30th August 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

GELANE EFA BULITI
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The Appellant arrived in the UK on the 11th of June 2013 and claimed asylum in December 2013. Her claim was first considered by Judge Pooler on the 2nd of June 2014. The Appellant's claim to be at risk as a known supporter of the OLF was rejected for the reasons given in the decision at paragraphs 17 to 26. That decision was not challenged and so would form the basis for the consideration of any further claims by the Appellant subject to new available justifying a different decision.
2. The Appellant renewed her claim. This was refused by the Secretary of State in a Refusal Letter of the 7th of May 2015 in which reliance was placed on the previous decision. Her appeal against that decision was heard by Judge Rose on the 9th of September 2015. In a decision promulgated on the 18th of September 2015 the appeal was dismissed with Judge Rose rejecting the Appellant's claim that her attendance at one demonstration would place her at risk on return.
3. The Appellant sought permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal in grounds of application of the 2nd of October 2015. It was argued in the application that the Judge had not applied the case of MB (Ethiopia), referred to in the grounds and the country guidance case. It the Appellant is registered as an OLF sympathiser and recognised as such that would be sufficient to bring her within MB.
4. Permission was refused by Judge Pooler on the 4th of October 2015 on as the Judge had properly taken the earlier decision as his starting point and was entitled to have regard to the inconsistencies in the Appellant's accounts as to how she had left Ethiopia. The weight to be attached to the written evidence was for the Judge. However on a renewed application to the Upper Tribunal permission was granted by Judge Bruce on the basis that the real issue was whether the Appellant was an OLF sympathiser and so at risk.
5. The rule 24 response from the Respondent submitted that the historic discrepancies in the Appellant's evidence were relevant to the question of whether she was an OLF sympathiser. Having been disbelieved in the past the Judge was right to be slow to accept her credibility on present issues. The evidence of Mr Berri had been considered by the Judge and her sur place activities were limited. Having had her case dismissed in 2014 the further submissions had taken the case no further forward.
6. At the hearing before the Upper Tribunal the Appellant was assisted by a McKenzie friend. The Upper Tribunal procedure and the limits on the nature of the hearing were explained. The submissions are set out in full in the Record of Proceedings.
7. The Appellant relied on the case of MB and went on to say that she could not be expected to change her ways in order to survive, relying on HJ (Iran). Mr Mills accepted that if a person was found to be an OLF sympathiser they would be at risk on return. The problem for the Appellant was that her account had been rejected in 201. Mr Mills accepted that if a person was found to be an OLF sympathiser they would be at risk on return. The problem for the Appellant was that her account had been rejected in 2014 and the only change since the decision had been her attendance at one demonstration. In his decision the Judge had expressly dealt with the new evidence and the letter.
8. As Judge Rose noted the decision of Judge Pooler was the starting point for his consideration of the facts of the appeal in front of him and in those circumstances evidence would be required to justify departing from the findings previously made. To succeed the Appellant would have to show that the adverse credibility findings were wrong in law, i.e. not open to the Judge on the evidence presented. I also note that the findings of Judge Pooler had not been challenged, or not successfully so.
9. At paragraph 14 Judge Pooler expressly declined to depart from the decision of Judge Pooler noting that the Appellant had not addressed the findings that Judge Pooler had made and the reasons he had given. In addition the account the Appellant now gave about leaving Ethiopia, set in paragraph 13, was different from the account she had given before Judge Pooler and that would undermine her credibility further.
10. The letter and email from Mr Berri were considered at paragraphs 16 and 17. The reasons given, including the lack of supporting information, were sufficient for the findings that he made and Judge Rose was entitled to attach no weight to the letter. The evidence of her involvement in sur place activity was limited and post-dated the first decision, the Judge was entitled to find that it did not advance her case or create a risk for her on return.
11. The grant of permission and the grounds appear to proceed on a flawed basis. The credibility of the Appellant was central to the Judge's consideration of her future risk and that had already been rejected by Judge Pooler for reasons that had not been challenged. Judge Rose's task was to analyse the evidence that arose after the initial decision and decide whether that justified a departure from the original findings. His decision was that the evidence presented did not add to the Appellant's case and that there was no basis for finding, to the lower standard, that the Appellant was to be seen as a sympathiser of the OLF. The finding that the Appellant's evidence did not show that she was a sympathiser of the OLF and that the Appellant's case did not justify a finding that the original decision of Judge Pooler could be departed from were open to Judge Rose for the reasons given.
12. The basis of the Appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal was on the basis that she is a sympathiser of the OLF but it was made without challenging the original decision or the reasons for Judge Rose's conclusions. In short the grounds disclose no error of law and the decision of Judge Rose stands as the decision in this Appellant's appeal.
CONCLUSIONS
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 the decision.
Anonymity
The First-tier Tribunal did not make an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 and I make no order.
Fee Award
In dismissing this appeal I make no fee award.

Signed:

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (IAC)
Dated: 22nd August 2016