Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-DH-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: aa/11352/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 25th November 2016
On 6th January 2017

Before

DEPUTY upper tribunal JUDGE RENTON

Between

B A
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION made)
Appellant

and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr T Hodson of Elder Rahimi Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr S Walker, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

Introduction
1. The Appellant is a male citizen of Iran born on 12th November 1968. He first arrived in the UK with his dependent wife and two children in March 2014 and claimed asylum. That application was refused for the reasons given in the Respondent's letter of 13th August 2015. The Appellant appealed, and his appeal was heard by Judge of the First-tier Tribunal Butler (the Judge) sitting at Birmingham on 20th May 2016. He decided to dismiss the appeal on asylum, humanitarian protection, and human rights grounds for the reasons given in his Decision dated 27th June 2016. The Appellant sought leave to appeal that decision, and on 19th September 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.
3. The Appellant claimed to be at risk on return to Iran owing to his political activities in that country. The Judge found this part of the Appellant's account to be lacking in credibility, identifying various inconsistencies and implausibilities in the Appellant's evidence. The Judge also found the Appellant's credibility to be damaged by operation of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. This part of the Judge's decision was not challenged at the hearing before me.
4. The Appellant also claimed to be at risk on return on the basis that since his departure from Iran and following his arrival in the UK, the Appellant had converted from being a Muslim to being a Christian. The Judge also rejected the credibility of this part of the Appellant's account, finding that the Appellant had been born a Christian in Iran and had not converted from Islam in the UK. In this respect, the Judge considered the evidence given at the hearing of Reverend Cobbin, but found the Appellant's account of his evangelising not to be credible. At his interview, the Appellant had demonstrated a more detailed knowledge of Christianity than Islam, and the Judge took into account his previous adverse finding as regards the Appellant's claims relating to his political activities in Iran. Reverend Cobbin had not confirmed the Appellant's evangelising, and the Judge found the Appellant's evidence concerning this claimed activity not to be consistent.
5. At the hearing before me, Mr Hodson referred to the grounds of application and argued that the Judge had erred in law in his decision that the Appellant was not a recent convert to Christianity. The Judge had given insufficient reasons for this conclusion, and there was no evidence before the Judge that the Appellant was of Armenian or Assyrian heritage suggesting that he had been born a Christian. Further, the Judge had failed to deal with the Appellant's marriage certificate which indicated in many ways that at the time of his marriage in Iran, the Appellant was a Muslim. For example, the marriage certificate described the Appellant and his wife as Muslims, and referred to another identity document describing them as such. The marriage certificate also contained details of a dowry and other marriage conditions which were in compliance with Sharia law.

6. In response, Mr Walker referred to the Rule 24 response and submitted that there was no such error of law. The Judge had considered all the evidence in the round when deciding the Appellant's credibility, and the grounds of application amounted to no more than a disagreement with the decision of the Judge.
7. I do find an error of law in the decision of the Judge which I therefore set aside. In my view, the Judge gave insufficient reasons for his finding that the Appellant was born a Christian and had not recently converted to that faith from Islam. The Judge did not err by taking into account in this respect his overall finding as to the credibility of the Appellant, but considering paragraphs 74 and 75 of the Decision, the only express reason the Judge gave for this particular finding was that the Appellant appeared to display a greater knowledge of Christianity than Islam. To say the least, this is an insufficient reason as there might be a number of circumstances whereby the Appellant knew more about Christianity than Islam. Further, the Judge failed to deal with or even mention in this context the Appellant's marriage certificate which had been produced and was before the Judge. As Mr Hodson argued, the marriage certificate contained significant information suggesting that the Appellant had been a Muslim at the time of his marriage. The Judge's failure to deal with this particular part of the evidence amounts to a material error of law.

Notice of Decision

The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal did involve the making of an error on a point of law.

I set aside that decision.

The decision will be remade by the First-tier Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7.2(b) of the Practice Statements. None of the findings of fact or as to credibility made by the Judge will be preserved.

Anonymity

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

Signed Date

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Renton