Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number AA/09348/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated
On 14th November 2016 On 12th December 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PARKES

Between

I A S
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
And

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

For the Appellant: Ms A Nizami (counsel, instructed by E A law Solicitors)
For the Respondent: Ms J Isherwood (Home Office Presenting Officer)

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant had claimed asylum on the basis of his activities as a journalist in the UK and Pakistan. The claim was rejected for the reasons given in the Refusal Letter of the 4th of June 2015. His appeal was heard by Judge Maxwell on the 14th of July 2016 and dismissed in a decision dated the 20th of July 2016. The Judge did not accept that the evidence of activity in Pakistan was particularly good and did not show that he would be at risk on return, the reasons were given in paragraphs 20 to 45 of the decision.

2. The grounds of application for permission to appeal raised 3 grounds. The first is that relevant evidence had not been considered in relation to threats made to the Appellant's source in Pakistan which included news reports, phone transcripts and FIR evidence. There were no findings with regard to the attack on the source's home in Pakistan. Secondly it was argued that the Judge had erred in relation to the Appellant's work in Pakistan. Thirdly it is asserted that the hearing was unfair as findings were made without the Appellant having been given the opportunity to address the Judge's concerns.

3. The submissions are set out in the Record of Proceedings. Both parties maintained their position with regard to the decision with the Home Office going through the decision and submitting that the Judge had considered all relevant matters. At the end of the hearing I indicated that if there was an error it was in respect of the transcript of the telephone conversation between Mudassar and Aamir Salman. Further submissions were made with regard to whether the decision should be remade and, if so, how I should decide the case.

4. With regard to the observations made in paragraph 32 about the reliability of the news articles submitted the complaint relates to only a small part of the Judge's reasoning. Other aspects of the Judge's approach are found in paragraphs 29, 30, 31 and 35 and these paragraphs have not attracted criticism. The decision has to be read as a whole and to single out paragraph 32 is to take it out of context, if that paragraph is excised from the decision the other findings remain and are sustainable.

5. It is not necessary for a decision to address each and every point that has been made in an Appellant's case. It is necessary that sufficient reasons are given for the decision made and that those reasons are justified on the evidence presented. With the exception of the transcript of the phone conversation I am satisfied that that is the case for the reasons that follow.

6. The Judge noted the Refusal Letter and was clearly aware of the Appellant's case and that his journalistic activities took place in the UK and Pakistan. Having accepted the Appellant's journalist activities in the UK the Judge gave reasons for not accepting that events in Pakistan would place him at risk there. The Judge noted, rightly, that the evidence did not show that being a journalist was by itself a source of danger in Pakistan. The Judge gave a number of reasons for not accepting the evidence of investigative work in Pakistan in paragraphs 28 to 37.

7. The findings amount to an overall rejection of the Appellant's case and the reasons given were justified. The Judge was also entitled to have regard to section 8 and the delay in the Appellant's making his claim and clearly did not treat the delay as determinative but considered it in context.

8. The Judge does not appear to have considered the telephone transcript of the conversation and that is where he appears to have erred. To that end I have considered the transcript that has now been provided to assess whether that makes a material difference to the decision.

9. There has been a delay in considering this appeal as the transcript of the phone conversation did not find its way to Birmingham following the hearing which I did not appreciate until I started this decision. There was then a further delay before the Appellant's representatives were able to furnish me with a copy of it.

10. In paragraph 36 of the decision the Judge referred to Tanveer Ahmed and the guidance given in relation to the assessment of documentation. The transcript is undated and not typed. It is not clear whether the conversation, which is typed in English, was actually conducted in that language or whether it is a translation from another language. If it is a translation then there is nothing from the translator and the recording of the conversation has not been made available.

11. In addition to the observations made above the Appellant is not named in the conversation although there are references to a person living in "Barmingham" (sic). The conversation was not solely concerned with any threats made but started off with a conversation about the rejection of a visa application. There is a reference to going to the Police if threats were received but no suggestion that specific threats had been made.

12. The conversation set out is not that easy to follow, it cannot be said that it probably relates to the Appellant and the contents do not show that threats have actually been made or to whom they relate. Given the lack of supporting evidence with regard to the provenance of the conversation, the timing and language used there would be ample justification for rejecting the reliability of the document, even without that point it does not add to the Appellant's case.

13. Having considered that document in the context of the decision of Judge Maxwell although he ought to have addressed it in his decision I am satisfied that his failure to do so was not material as it would have made no difference to the findings that the Judge made or the conclusions that he reached based upon them. Accordingly the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did not involve the making of a material error of law and the decision stands as the disposal of the Appellant's appeal in this case.

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 made an order pursuant to rule 45(4)(i) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005.

I continue that order (pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.)

Fee Award

In dismissing this appeal I make no fee award.

Signed:

Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (IAC)

Dated: 9th December 2016