Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/11536/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 3 August 2016
On 9 August 2016

Before

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HILL QC

Between

O A A
(anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Gilbert of Counsel, instructed by J D Spicer Zeb Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr C Avery, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS

1. This is an appeal from a decision of First-tier Tribunal Judge Hall promulgated on 23 May 2016, and I will continue with the anonymity direction.

2. The appellant is a citizen of Iraq, born in 1979, who arrived illegally in the United Kingdom in June 2014 and claimed asylum immediately upon his arrival. He is a Sunni Muslim born in Salahaldin in Iraq where he lived with his parents and six siblings. His claim by way of asylum was based upon likely risk of persecution were he to be returned to Iraq. The Judge dealt with the factual disputes and applied the law applying the appropriate burden and standard of proof.

3. There were two aspects of the appellant's claim which the Judge expressly rejected: one was that the appellant's brother had mistakenly been killed in his place and the second was that the family home was attacked by IS militia apparently looking for the appellant.

4. The Judge identified the relevant country guidance to be found in AA (Article 15(c) Iraq CG [2015] UKUT 00544 and the Judge proceeded to apply that country guidance in relation to the particular factual circumstances of this appellant. In particular, the Judge considered whether the appellant would be at risk were he to relocate in Baghdad. The grounds of appeal were somewhat discursive and I am grateful to Mr Gilbert, who has represented the appellant before me this afternoon, both for the provision of a detailed skeleton argument and for helpfully refining and reformulating the grounds in his oral submissions into three distinct areas of concern.

5. First, he contends that the Judge failed properly to take into account the fact that the appellant's civil service identity document (CSID), would be sufficient of itself to identify his religious affiliation as a Sunni Muslim and the region of Iraq from which he came. It is suggested that those two pieces of information would put the appellant specifically at risk, and the judge did not take this feature into account.

6. The second concern was that the Judge did not have sufficient regard to all the available material regarding the potential risk to Sunni Muslims. Mr Gilbert took me to a document headed Annex B Letter from the British Embassy Baghdad "Violence in Baghdad by Area" dated 29 March 2006. It would appear from the grounds of appeal that this document was before the Judge on the basis that it is said it was submitted with the skeleton argument and certainly Mr Avery who represents the Home Secretary does not suggest otherwise. The material contained in that letter deals with various issues concerning the situation in Baghdad specifically on a zone by zone basis. Mr Gilbert took me to a number of specific points and invited me to conclude that the situation in Baghdad had deteriorated and is deteriorating significantly and that the country guidance in AA must be read in the context of that progressively worsening situation.

7. The third point matter is that the Judge failed to have sufficient regard to the risk posed to the appellant by Shia militia in Baghdad. For reasons mirroring those in the first point of concern, Mr Gilbert contended that the appellant would be particularly at risk in that were he to be stopped at any checkpoint in Baghdad it would immediately become apparent that he was both a Sunni Muslim and that he came from a particular area of Iraq.

8. Whilst not abandoning the other grounds set out in the written application, Mr Gilbert did not address me separately on the remainder of them, as there was a considerable degree of overlap and he considered he had covered the territory sufficiently in making the submissions which he did. Point (c)(7) was not pursued, Mr Gilbert recognising that the weight to be afforded to various aspects of the evidence was properly a matter for the Judge.

9. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Judge did not make express reference to the Annex B letter in the course of his determination but reading the decision holistically and having regard to the careful and detailed analysis which the judge brought to bear, he was evidently fully aware of its content and he approached the case with those matters as part of the factual background in relation to which he made his findings. The Judge dealt with paragraph 339K of the Immigration Rules [at para 62] which assess whether previous incidents of persecution or serious harm are indicative of the likelihood of future such incidents. He rejected the causative conclusion on these particular facts because it had no bearing risk since his return would be in the nature of internal location to Baghdad, and he was no longer in the employ of IOM.

10. The substantive conclusion of the Judge is to be found in paragraph 75 of the determination. He says this:

"I do not find that the background evidence or the country guidance indicates that the appellant would be at risk in Baghdad because he previously worked for IOM or because he is a Sunni Muslim. With reference to paragraph 339K I find there are good reasons to consider that that the threats previously made to the appellant would not be repeated. This is because he no longer works for IOM, and he would be resident in Baghdad city and not in an area controlled by ISIS."

11. Looking at the totality of the determination and particularly at paragraph 66 where the judge set out the relevant points for consideration under AA in assessing whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh for an individual to relocate to Baghdad, the Judge applied his mind with care to their relevance and application in this specific case and came to the factual conclusion that the appellant would not be at risk upon internal relocation to Baghdad.

12. It is, of course, possible that other judges might have come to a different conclusion, but that is not the test which has to be applied here in the Upper Tribunal. It is for an appellant to demonstrate that there was a material error of law on the Judge's part in the First-tier Tribunal. Notwithstanding the forceful yet economical submissions of Mr Gilbert, I am compelled to conclude that there is no error of law. The complaints which he makes behalf of the appellant are no more than challenges to the factual findings which the Judge came to in what is, in my assessment, an unimpeachable application of the country guidance in AA. It must therefore follow that this appeal is dismissed.
Notice of Decision

This appeal is dismissed and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is maintained.

Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

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 their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Signed Mark Hill QC Date 8 August 2016

Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hill QC