Tribunal decisions

The decision

IAC-AH-dh-V1

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/11884/2015

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Bradford
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 29 September 2016
On 15 November 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CLIVE LANE

Between

marie umurungi
(ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr A Slatter, instructed by Richmond Chambers LLP
For the Respondent: Mrs Pettersen, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
1. The appellant, Marie Umurungi, was born on 20 December 1983 and is a citizen of Rwanda. The appellant entered the United Kingdom as a student in 2010. She claimed asylum in March 2015. By a decision dated 20 August 2015, the respondent refused the appellant's application for asylum. The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Turlock) which, in a decision promulgated on 17 May 2016, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals, with permission, to the Upper Tribunal.
2. The appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerns the appellant's sur place activities on behalf of the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) and the possible risk to which this may expose the appellant upon return to Rwanda.
3. Judge Turlock found that the appellant had not been mistreated in Rwanda as she had claimed. At [80], the judge did not find the appellant "to be a credible witness" and he did not accept any part of her evidence. The judge found that she was "not involved with the RNC in Rwanda as claimed nor that she was arrested as a result. I find that she is not at risk on return as a result of any activity which is undertaken in Rwanda." The judge went on to note that the appellant produced a membership card and photographs of demonstrations which he claimed to have taken place in the United Kingdom. He heard evidence from Bonifaace Twahira. He found Mr Twahira to be "a credible witness on whose evidence I could rely." [84]. In Mr Twahira's written evidence (which the judge quotes at [83]) the appellant was described as
a very vocal member who tried to highlight the plight of Rwandans both at home and abroad. ... Currently [the appellant] is the RNC youth coordinator for the north and as a hardworking person I have no doubt in my position to offer any support now and at any time to come.
At [88] the judge accepted that the appellant had been involved "at a low level" with the RNC in the UK. Although she had attended demonstrations "she does not appear in any of the photographs." The judge cited Danian [2002] IMM AR 96 and also YB (Eritrea) [2008] EWCA Civ 360. At [92] the judge went on to state that he found that the appellant "has taken part in a few demonstrations in the UK in relation to Rwanda." He did record, however, in the same paragraph and by reference to the photograph evidence that "[the appellant] ? is not acting as a leader, mobiliser or organiser but simply a member of the crowd." The appellant asserts that, having accepted Mr Twahira's evidence, the judge had not explained why he did not accept Mr Twahira's description of the appellant both as a youth coordinator and at the demonstrations as "very active". That evidence, it is asserted, is in contrast to the judge's findings at [92] that the appellant was not shown as "acting as a leader, mobiliser or organiser but simply as a member of the crowd." Indeed, the fact that she was a "member of the crowd" would indicate that the judge had reversed his earlier finding that she could not be seen on any of the photographs.
4. I do not find that the ground has merit. Inconsistencies may appear to exist in the judge's decision when one descends to a minute examination of the text but what is important is to read the decision as a whole. When one does so, it is apparent that the judge did not consider that the photographs provided any evidence that the appellant was actively involved as a leader, mobiliser or organiser at any demonstration. She might have been in the crowd but the judge could not identify her at all in the photographs and, most importantly, he was satisfied that she had not taken any active role.
5. The appellant also asserts that the judge has failed properly to make a finding as to the role which he plays in the RNC as coordinator for the north. I agree that the focus of the judge's decision at [91-92] is very much upon demonstrations (he quotes from BA (Demonstrators in Britain - risk on return) (Iran) CG [2011] UKUT 36 (IAC) at length) and it is true that [92] deals primarily with demonstrations rather than any wider, bureaucratic role played by the appellant in the organisation. However, the judge's decision must be placed in context. The judge properly observes that "there is no evidence to suggest that the regime in Rwanda aims to identify demonstrators although there is some evidence that it does target high-profile individuals outside the country." It absolutely clear from the judge's findings that he did not find the appellant to be a "high-profile individual". Further, the judge was entitled to find, on the basis of the evidence before him, that there was "no evidence to suggest that the regime... aims to identify demonstrators." Given that the judge himself could not identify the appellant on the photographs because her role was so insignificant, it cannot be reasonably likely that she would be exposed to risk should the Rwandan regime examine the same photographs. As regards the appellant's wider role as a youth coordinator, there appears to have been no evidence before the judge which might indicate that such a role within the RNC in the United Kingdom was likely to expose an individual to risk on return. The judge's finding, following a careful assessment of all the evidence, at [93] that "the appellant would not be at risk on return with respect to the activities she has undertaken in the UK" is plainly sufficiently comprehensive to cover both her involvement at demonstrations and her ongoing role as a youth coordinator.
6. In conclusion, this is a well-structured and argued decision of the First-tier Tribunal. The judge has reached an outcome which was clearly available to him on the evidence and he has done so by making clear and rational findings based upon that evidence. I do not find that the judge has erred in law for the reasons given in the grounds of appeal or at all.

Notice of Decision

This appeal is dismissed.

No anonymity direction is made.

Signed Date 10 November 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

I have dismissed the appeal and therefore there can be no fee award.

Signed Date 10 November 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Clive Lane