Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-LEM/CJ-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: aa/08951/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Manchester
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 6th February 2017
On 16th February 2017

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LEVER

Between

MR Abdiwali Kaahiye abdulle
(ANONYMITY NOT RETAINED)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Miss Farrell
For the Respondent: Mr Bates, Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant born on 1st January 1987 is a citizen of Somalia. The Appellant who was present was represented by Miss Farrell. The Respondent was represented by Mr Bates, Presenting Officer.
Substantive Issues under Appeal
2. The Appellant entered the United Kingdom in January 2012 for family reunion as a refugee. Thereafter he divorced his wife and claimed asylum in November 2014. On 27th May 2015 a decision was made by the Respondent to refuse the Appellant's application. The Appellant appealed that decision and his appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Chambers sitting at Manchester on 5th February 2016. He dismissed the Appellant's appeal on all grounds. Application for permission to appeal was made and was granted by First-tier Tribunal Judge Reid on 9th March 2016. It was said that the judge potentially did not make adequate findings in respect of risk on return having made positive findings in respect of the Appellant's factual claim. It was also said there may be some contradictory findings when the judge referred to the Appellant potentially obtaining support from his minority clan.
3. Directions were issued for the matter to be heard, firstly to consider whether an error of law had been made by the First-tier Tribunal and the matter comes before me in accordance with those directions.
Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant
4. Miss Farrell had drafted the original grounds for application and referred to those. I was referred to the case of MOJ and it was submitted that the case of AMM was still relevant. It was said the judge had not engaged with the fact that the Appellant had been out of the country for six years.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent
5. Mr Bates noted at paragraph 19 the judge had directed himself in respect of both AMM as well as MOJ. It was said that the judge had adequately looked at risk on return. It was noted there may have been a non-material error by the judge saying that he could be supported by members of his minority clan. Finally Miss Farrell said that that was a material error.
6. At the conclusion I reserved my decision to consider the documents and evidence submitted. I now provide that decision with my reasons. The judge in this case had properly set out the applicable law and burden and standard of proof. He had made findings in respect of the Appellant's claim and found in general terms the Appellant to be a credible witness. To that extent he found that the Appellant was a Somali national and a member of the minority Shanshi clan and had been born and lived in the area of Mogadishu. The judge accepted the Appellant had been ill-treated by members of the Hawiye clan and by members of Al-Shabab.
7. Having made those findings the judge noted at paragraph 19 and specifically noted the relevant country guidance case being MOJ Somalia CG [2014] UKUT 00442. However he further noted that in respect of matters not addressed by MOJ the earlier case of AMM CG [2011] UKUT 445 continues to have effect.
8. Having properly identified the relevant country guidance cases the judge then applied the factual matrix as found to those country guidance cases. He found at paragraph 20 that although Al-Shabab targeted various groups, the Appellant did not fall into any identifiable risk category in that respect. He had further noted in that same paragraph that the Appellant would be returning to Mogadishu after a period of absence living in Europe.
9. At paragraph 21 the judge identified the main difficulty with the Appellant being economic reintegration in Mogadishu. He found the Appellant would not face violence from opposing clans and said that potentially there should be support from his own clan. That may have been a factual error in terms of the findings in MOJ given that the Appellant is from a minority clan. However it is also clear that what the judge had in mind was that the Appellant and his family were originally from Mogadishu and his ex-wife's family also lived in Mogadishu and there was no evidence that all those potential family members have been displaced. The judge has further noted the Appellant's evidence that he had moved between a number of different friends' homes and found that the Appellant's account demonstrated he had received support in terms of accommodation from family and friends in the area of Mogadishu. Those were findings the judge was entitled to make on the evidence presented.
10. The judge had considered in general terms risk on return at paragraphs 20 and 21 of his decision and clearly had in mind both the country guidance cases of MOJ and AMM when assessing that risk.
11. The conclusions made by the judge were open to him on the facts and his conclusion that there was no reasonable risk on return was both open to him and in line with the country guidance cases that clearly he had in mind and followed.
Notice of Decision
12. There was no material error of law in this case and I uphold the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.

Anonymity not retained.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Lever