Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-CJ-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/10907/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Centre City Tower, Birmingham
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 7th October 2016
On 11th November 2016

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

M E O
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Vokes, Counsel instructed by TRP Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr D Mills, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The Appellant is a female citizen of Iran born on 21st September 1984. The Appellant entered the UK illegally on 26th February 2015 and applied for asylum. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent's letter of 28th July 2015. The Appellant appealed, and her appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Phull (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 23rd May 2016. She decided to dismiss the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection, and Articles 2 and 3 ECHR grounds for the reasons given in her Decision dated 29th May 2016. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 29th June 2016 such permission was granted.
Error of Law
2. I must first decide if the decision of the Judge contained an error on a point of law so that it should be set aside. Leave to appeal was granted on only one of the grounds of application relied upon by the Appellant, namely that the Judge had failed to consider the decision in AB and Others (Internet activity - state of evidence) Iran [2015] UKUT 257 (IAC) in relation to the Appellant's Facebook account.
3. The Judge dismissed the appeal because she found the Appellant's account of events in Iran to be lacking in credibility. Further, the Judge found that even if the Appellant had been arrested by the authorities in Iran in 2011, the Appellant had not been persecuted as a consequence and that she had not experienced any further difficulties living in Iran thereafter. As regards the Appellant's sur place activities, the Judge found that the Appellant did not belong to any anti-Iranian organisations in the UK, but that she had attended one demonstration in London in 2016. This did not put the Appellant at risk on return because the Iranian authorities would not be able to identify her. However, the Judge accepted that the Appellant had a Facebook page which identified her by name and in which the Appellant had been critical of the Iranian authorities because of their importation of drugs. However, the Appellant's Facebook activity was recent, and applying the decision in BA (Demonstrators in Britain - risk on return) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 00036 (IAC), it did not place the Appellant at risk on return because she did not have a political profile as an activist in the UK.
4. At the hearing, Mr Vokes referred to his Skeleton Argument and submitted that the Judge had erred in law by coming to this conclusion. The Judge had failed to make proper findings as to the Appellant's arrest in 2011, and had failed to link that event to the Appellant's sur place activities in the UK which together would give her a political profile. When considering those sur place activities the Judge had erred in fact in considering them recent whereas they had begun in March 2015 following the Appellant's arrival in the UK in February 2015. Further, the Judge had relied upon the decision in BA which was out of date. She had not referred to the more recent decision of AB and Others at all. On a proper interpretation of that more recent decision, the Judge would have concluded that the Appellant was at risk on return.
5. In response, Mr Mills referred to the Rule 24 response and argued that there was no such material error of law. The Judge had made a clear finding that the Appellant had come to the adverse attention of the authorities in Iran in 2011 at paragraph 29 of the Decision. Otherwise the Judge had made a further clear finding that the events in Iran in 2015 claimed by the Appellant were not credible. The Judge had correctly decided that the events in 2011 alone did not put the Appellant at risk for the cogent reasons she gave.
6. As regards the Appellant's sur place activities, the Judge had correctly applied the current Country Guidance case of BA. The decision in AB and Others, although reported, was not a Country Guidance decision. Applying BA, the Judge had correctly decided that one attendance at a demonstration did not put the Appellant at risk on return. Further, the Judge had made an appropriate finding as regards the Appellant's Facebook activities. There was not a long history of such. It had been open to the Judge to find that the Appellant did not have a political profile in Iran.
7. I find no error of law in the decision of the Judge which I therefore do not set aside. The Judge made comprehensive findings in respect of events in Iran in 2011 and 2015, and in the UK. Those were findings which were open to her on the evidence before her and which she fully explained. The Judge was entitled to find that the Appellant's Facebook activities did not amount to a great deal, and even when coupled with the arrest in 2011, did not give the Appellant a political profile which might put her at risk on return. As regards the Appellant's attendance at a demonstration, the Judge's decision that that also did not put the Appellant at risk on return is in accordance with the current Country Guidance case of BA. It is true that as regards the Appellant's Facebook activities, that the Judge did not take account of the reported decision of AB and Others. It is not referred to at all in the Decision. However, this does not amount to a material error of law bearing in mind what is said at paragraph 470 of AB and Others. In accordance with the fact-finding of the Judge, the Appellant would not have to reveal her Facebook activities at the "pinch point" of return.
8. For these reasons I find no material error of law and the decision of the Judge is not set aside.

Decision

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 that decision.

The appeal to the Upper Tribunal is dismissed.

Anonymity

The First-tier Tribunal did make an order for anonymity which I continue for the reasons given by the First-tier Tribunal.

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton