Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number:
AA/08270/2013

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at: Manchester
Decision Promulgated
On: 23rd March 2017
On: 24th March 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BRUCE

Between

JR
(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

For the Appellant: no appearance
For the Respondent: Mr G. Harrison, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a national of Iran born in 1984. This appeal concerns his ongoing claim for international protection.

Anonymity Order

2. This is an asylum claim. Having had regard to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 and the Presidential Guidance Note No 1 of 2013: Anonymity Orders I therefore consider it appropriate to make an order in the following terms:

“Unless and until a tribunal or court directs otherwise, the Appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of his family. This direction applies to, amongst others, both the Appellant and the Respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings”

Proceeding in the Absence of the Appellant

3. The history of this matter is as follows:

15.10.12 Appellant claims to have entered the UK

24.10.12 Appellant claims asylum at ASU

15.8.13 Respondent refuses to grant protection and serves s10 removal
notice

Appellant lodges appeal in First-tier Tribunal

24.11.13 First-tier Tribunal Judge Law dismisses asylum appeal but
allows appeal on Article 3 grounds, finding a real risk of serious
harm on the grounds that the Appellant left Iran illegally and
may be imprisoned, questioned and ill-treated upon return as a
result

20.12.13 Respondent given permission to appeal

7.5.14 Designated Judge of the First-tier Tribunal McClure finds error
of law in Judge Law’s Article 3 decision and allows
Respondent’s appeal on grounds that there was insufficient
evidence to justify departure from the then extant country
guidance on risk on return

9.9.14 Upper Tribunal Judge Jordan refuses permission to appeal to the
Court of Appeal

27.3.15 Lord Justice Beatson grants permission to appeal to the Court of
Appeal

7.12.15 The matter was remitted by Lord Justice Laws to the Upper Tribunal by consent

4. So it was that the matter came before me on the 21st September 2016. There was no attendance by either the Appellant or his representative. Upon examination of the file it became apparent that the Notices of Hearing that had been sent out may have been sent to an old address for both the Appellant and his solicitors, Broudie Jackson and Canter. In those circumstances the Respondent had no objection to the hearing being adjourned. The matter was relisted on the 16th November 2016 and again there was no appearance. I spoke with Helene Santamera of Broudie Jackson and Canter who informed me that she had been unaware of the hearing. It seems that by administrative error the wrong addresses had once again been used. Ms Santamera gave the last address that she had for the Appellant, in Leicester, to the Tribunal and the Respondent. Fresh notices were sent to that address in respect of today’s hearing. Broudie Jackson and Canter are no longer on record, having indicated that due to lack of instructions they would not be attending.

5. I was not minded to further adjourn the proceedings. The Appellant has variously had notices of hearing served on the last address that he provided the Tribunal himself, the last address at which he was known by the Respondent, and to the last address that his solicitors had for him. I cannot be satisfied that any further attempts to contact him or secure his attendance would be fruitful. Having regard to the overriding objective and mindful of the substantial delay that there has already been in the final determination of this matter, I decided to proceed in the absence of the Appellant.

My Findings

6. In his decision dated 24th November 2013 First-tier Tribunal Judge Laws comprehensively rejected the Appellant’s asylum claim, advanced on the basis that he had inadvertently had an extra-marital affair with his step-mother and was now in danger as a result. The only factor which Judge Laws considered might put the Appellant at a real risk of serious harm was his assertion that he had left Iran illegally, and would be returned as a failed asylum seeker.

7. That was the case that was considered by the Court of Appeal to have arguable merit when it granted permission against Judge McClure’s decision. It is founded on an argument which has now been rejected by the Upper Tribunal in SSH and HR (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) [2016] UKUT 308 (IAC). The findings of the Upper Tribunal are summarised in the headnote as follows:

(a) An Iranian male whom it is sought to return to Iran, who does not possess a passport, will be returnable on a laissez passer, which he can obtain from the Iranian Embassy on proof of identity and nationality.

(b) An Iranian male in respect of whom no adverse interest has previously been manifested by the Iranian State does not face a real risk of persecution/breach of his Article 3 rights on return to Iran on account of having left Iran illegally and/or being a failed asylum seeker. No such risk exists at the time of questioning on return to Iran nor after the facts (i.e. of illegal exit and being a failed asylum seeker) have been established. In particular, there is not a real risk of prosecution leading to imprisonment.

The Tribunal thereby rejected the proposition that questioning on arrival for either illegal exit and/or having claimed asylum would entail a real risk of detention and ill-treatment.

8. I can find no feature of the Appellant’s case which would lift him above the position of being a failed asylum seeker who at present has no travel document. For that reason his appeal must, applying the findings in SSH and HR, be dismissed.

Decisions

9. The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.

10. There is an order for anonymity.

Upper Tribunal Judge Bruce
23rd March 2017